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 Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: biasing member in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 47 each recite “maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the backstop . . . .” This recitation contains new matter. The alignment between the backstop and the clamping face is not disclosed as parallel. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-5, 9, 11-17 and 36-47 are 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 1 recites “spring-biased covers” in Line 9, but then recites to “a biasing member” in Line 11. The term “biasing member” invokes interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). It is unclear whether the spring-biased covers are biased by a spring or something equivalent. It is also unclear what impact the biasing member has on the claim as there is no correlation between the biasing member and the covers. The claim merely sets forth that the drill guide assembly includes a biasing member. However, one would already think that a biasing member were present for the spring-biased covers. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “covers are moveable inward when a user-applied force overcomes the spring force” in Lines 13-14. The term “when” creates a lack of clarity because it draws into question whether the limitation is required if the “when” condition never occurs. Moreover, the metes and bounds of “a user-applied force” are unclear. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a user (i.e., a human) within the claim. The rejection could be overcome by removal of the term “when” and reference to a force without the user. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the spring-biased projections” in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 does not end with a period. As such, it is unclear whether there are missing limitations or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 37 recites “the handle is configured to move in a single vertical plane between the raised position and the lowered position.” The metes and bounds of capable of moving in a single vertical plane are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would be apprised of the claim scope. The movement of a feature in a direction will traverse many planes so Applicant must be more specific as to what is being claimed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 40 recites “by applying a user-applied force to cause” in Lines 15-16. The metes and bounds of “a user-applied force” are unclear. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a user (i.e., a human) within the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 40 recites “disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block” in Line 17. The metes and bounds of “clear the connector features” are unclear. That is, disengaging already removes the connector features for the corresponding connector features, so it is unclear what the further “clearing” requires. The clearing capability could be further described to obviate this rejection. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 41 recites “the handle is configured to move in a single vertical plane between the raised position and the lowered position.” The metes and bounds of capable of moving in a single vertical plane are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would be apprised of the claim scope. The movement of a feature in a direction will traverse many planes so Applicant must be more specific as to what is being claimed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 44 recites “by applying a user-applied force to cause” in Lines 16-17. The metes and bounds of “a user-applied force” are unclear. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a user (i.e., a human) within the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 45 recites “the handle is configured to move in a single vertical plane between the raised position and the lowered position.” The metes and bounds of capable of moving in a single vertical plane are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would be apprised of the claim scope. The movement of a feature in a direction will traverse many planes so Applicant must be more specific as to what is being claimed. Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-17 and 36-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelkey (US Patent No. 9,782,837 B2) in view of Chiang (US Pub. No. 2007/0201961 A1) or Degen (EP 1595627 B1).
(Claim 1) Pelkey discloses a pocket hole jig system (10; Figs. 1-29). The pocket hole jig system includes: a base (14); an upright assembly (28) operably connected to the base (Fig. 1); a clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) operably connected to the upright assembly (Figs. 1-3); and a handle (108) operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7-13). The handle (108) is moveable between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11). A drill guide assembly (34, 134, 116) is operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7, 8). A drill guide block (84, 86) is configured to operably connect to, and be removed from, the drill guide assembly (via dovetail grooves 218; Figs. 15, 16). The drill guide block has connector features and the drill guide assembly has connector features (216, 218, 64, 224). The connector features of the drill guide block are capable of engaging the connector features of the drill guide assembly (Figs. 14-22). The drill guide block has a clamping face (Figs. 1-3, 9-13). The drill guide block has a plurality of drill guides (262, 264) having corresponding bores that intersect the clamping face (Figs. 15, 16). Pelkey discloses an adjustable connection between the drill guide block to the drill guide assembly, but the connection is not explicitly disclosed as being a spring-biased covers.
Chiang discloses a pocket hole jig (1) having adjustable connection of an individual drill guide block along a rod (50) via a spring biased/spring-loaded button/projection (262, 261). At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector features (as best understood, of the drill guide block at least indirectly) in Pelkey with the spring-biased projection connection as taught by Chiang in order to provide individual adjustment/movement to a given guide block (¶¶ 0031-0032) and/or time reduction for removal of the drill guide block from the drill guide assembly (time reduction due to not having to unthread the drill bock from the shaft 224, but instead depress projection to slide the drill bock off the drill guide assembly). As a result of the modification (and as best understood), the drill guide block of Pelkey is capable of being removed from the drill guide assembly by applying a user-applied force to cause the connector features of the drill guide assembly to disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block.
Degen discloses a pocket hole jig (Fig. 1) having connection between a drill guide block (10) and a drill guide assembly (9) via a spring biased/spring-loaded button/projection (16, 15, 15’, 17). At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector features in Pelkey with the push-button projection connection as taught by Degen in order to provide a quick release and specific lock positions for the drill guide (for specific drilling locations). As a result of the modification (and as best understood), the drill guide block of Pelkey is capable of being removed from the drill guide assembly by applying a user-applied force to cause the connector features of the drill guide assembly to disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block.
Either modification results in opposing spring-biased members in the sense that there are two portions of the drill block at opposed ends of the drill guide assembly. In the event Applicant means opposed as in there are two covers on opposite sides of each drill block portion, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify Pelkey to have opposing covers in said manner in order to interact with each of the opposing connection features as a mere duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
(Claim 2) The base (14) has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (Fig. 1).
(Claim 3) The upright assembly (28) extends upward and away from the base at an angle such that, when the drill guide block is attached to the drill guide assembly, the drill guide block moves downward and forward toward a workpiece when the handle is moved from a raised position to a lowered position (Figs. 1, 9-11 as shown from Fig. 11 to Fig. 9).
(Claim 4) A workpiece is clamped between a backstop of the base and the clamping face of the drill guide block (Figs. 9-11).
(Claim 5) As best understood, the connector features of the drill guide block are configured to engage the connector features of the drill guide assembly.
(Claim 9) A clamp force adjustment mechanism (112; Col. 9, Lines 41-50) operably connected with the clamping assembly (Fig. 3). The clamp force adjustment mechanism adjusts clamping pressure applied on a workpiece (via movement of the clamping assembly from position in Fig. 11 to position in Fig. 9).
(Claim 11) A return spring (156) facilitates automatic return of the drill guide assembly to an unclamped position.
(Claim 12) The drill guide assembly (34) includes an opening (296) that receives a dust vacuum attachment (144) that is capable of receiving and transporting through the opening woodchips, dust and debris generated during drilling.
(Claim 13) The user is capable of moving the handle to adjust the height of the drill guide block, based on thickness of a workpiece, as well as to clamp the workpiece (Figs. 9-11; Col. 4, Lines 16-29).
(Claim 14) Movement of the handle from the raised position to the lowered position automatically lowers the drill guide block to the appropriate height based on the height o a workpiece (Figs. 9-11; Col. 4, Lines 16-29).
(Claim 15) Movement of the handle from the raised position to the lowered position automatically moves the drill guide block to a forward position for a workpiece based on thickness of the workpiece (Figs. 9-11; Col. 4, Lines 16-29).
(Claim 16) Movement of the handle from the raised position to the lowered position automatically applies, as best understood, approximately a set clamping pressure on workpieces of different thickness (Figs. 9-11; Col. 4, Lines 16-29).
(Claim 17) As best understood, the handle (108) moves in a single vertical plane to facilitate clamping as well as unclamping of the workpiece (Figs. 9-11; Col. 9, Lines 18-23; Col. 8, Lines 1-35).
(Claim 36) When the drill guide block is attached to the drill guide assembly, movement of the handle from the raised position to the lowered position adjusts the height of the drill guide block and drill guide assembly to facilitate clamping of workpieces of various thicknesses (Figs. 9-11; Col. 4, Lines 16-29).
(Claim 37) As best understood, the handle (108) is moveable in a single vertical plane between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11).
(Claim 38) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop (Fig. 1).
(Claim 39) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to: move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop; and after the clamping face contacts the workpiece, move the clamping face forward to clamp the workpiece between the clamping face and the backstop (Fig. 1).
(Claim 40) Pelkey discloses a pocket hole jig system (10; Figs. 1-29). The pocket hole jig system includes: a base (14); an upright assembly (28) operably connected to the base (Fig. 1); a clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) operably connected to the upright assembly (Figs. 1-3); and a handle (108) operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7-13). The handle (108) is moveable between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11). A drill guide assembly (34, 134, 116) is operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7, 8). A drill guide block (84, 86) is configured to operably connect to, and be removed from, the drill guide assembly (via dovetail grooves 218; Figs. 15, 16). The drill guide block has connector features and the drill guide assembly has connector features (216, 218, 64, 224). The connector features of the drill guide block are capable of engaging the connector features of the drill guide assembly (Figs. 14-22). The drill guide block has a clamping face (Figs. 1-3, 9-13). The drill guide block has a plurality of drill guides (262, 264) having corresponding bores that intersect the clamping face (Figs. 15, 16). Pelkey discloses an adjustable connection between the drill guide block to the drill guide assembly, but the connection is not explicitly disclosed as being spring-biased.
Chiang discloses a pocket hole jig (1) having adjustable connection of an individual drill guide block along a rod (50) via a spring biased button/projection (262, 261). At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector features (as best understood, of the drill guide block at least indirectly) in Pelkey with the spring-biased projection connection as taught by Chiang in order to provide individual adjustment/movement to a given guide block (¶¶ 0031-0032) and/or time reduction for removal of the drill guide block from the drill guide assembly (time reduction due to not having to unthread the drill bock from the shaft 224, but instead depress projection to slide the drill bock off the drill guide assembly). As a result of the modification (and as best understood), the drill guide block of Pelkey is capable of being removed from the drill guide assembly by applying a user-applied force to cause the connector features of the drill guide assembly to disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block.
Degen discloses a pocket hole jig (Fig. 1) having connection between a drill guide block (10) and a drill guide assembly (9) via a spring biased/spring-loaded button/projection (16, 15, 15’, 17). At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector features in Pelkey with the push-button projection connection as taught by Degen in order to provide a quick release and specific lock positions for the drill guide (for specific drilling locations). As a result of the modification (and as best understood), the drill guide block of Pelkey is capable of being removed from the drill guide assembly by applying a user-applied force to cause the connector features of the drill guide assembly to disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block.
(Claim 41) As best understood, the handle (108) is moveable in a single vertical plane between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11).
(Claim 42) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop (Fig. 1).
(Claim 43) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to: move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop; and after the clamping face contacts the workpiece, move the clamping face forward to clamp the workpiece between the clamping face and the backstop (Fig. 1).
Claims 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelkey (US Patent No. 9,782,837 B2) in view of Walters (US Patent No. 1,583,946).
(Claim 44) Pelkey discloses a pocket hole jig system (10; Figs. 1-29). The pocket hole jig system includes: a base (14); an upright assembly (28) operably connected to the base (Fig. 1); a clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) operably connected to the upright assembly (Figs. 1-3); and a handle (108) operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7-13). The handle (108) is moveable between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11). A drill guide assembly (34, 134, 116) is operably connected to the clamping assembly (Figs. 1-4, 7, 8). A drill guide block (84, 86) is configured to operably connect to, and be removed from, the drill guide assembly (via dovetail grooves 218; Figs. 15, 16). The drill guide block has connector features and the drill guide assembly has connector features (216, 218, 64, 224). The connector features of the drill guide block are capable of engaging the connector features of the drill guide assembly (Figs. 14-22). The drill guide block has a clamping face (Figs. 1-3, 9-13). The drill guide block has a plurality of drill guides (262, 264) having corresponding bores that intersect the clamping face (Figs. 15, 16). Pelkey discloses an adjustable connection between the drill guide block to the drill guide assembly, but the connection is not explicitly disclosed as being pivotable.
Walters discloses a hole jig (Fig. 1) having adjustable connection of an individual drill guide block (23) via a spring biased cover that pivots (31, 25-29). At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector features (as best understood, of the drill guide block at least indirectly) in Pelkey with the spring-biased cover connection as taught by Walters in order to latch automatically the features together and then unlatch by depression of the spring (Page 1, Lines 91-100) such that time reduction for removal of the drill guide block from the drill guide assembly is a result (time reduction due to not having to unthread the drill bock from the shaft 224, but instead depress projection to slide the drill bock off the drill guide assembly). As a result of the modification (and as best understood), the drill guide block of Pelkey is capable of being removed from the drill guide assembly by applying a user-applied force to cause the connector features of the drill guide assembly to disengage from and clear the connector features of the drill guide block.
(Claim 45) As best understood, the handle (108) is moveable in a single vertical plane between a raised position and a lowered position (Figs. 9-11).
(Claim 46) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop (Fig. 1).
(Claim 47) The base has a lower portion (24) and a backstop (18). The backstop is positioned opposite the upright assembly (28; Fig. 1). The handle (108) and the clamping assembly (106; Figs. 7, 8) are configured such that movement of the handle in a single movement from raised position to the lowered position causes the clamping assembly to: move downward and forward along the upright assembly, while maintaining a parallel alignment of the clamping face to the back stop, until the clamping face contacts a workpiece positioned against the backstop; and after the clamping face contacts the workpiece, move the clamping face forward to clamp the workpiece between the clamping face and the backstop (Fig. 1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-17 and 36-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 (claims 1-25 read on much of the claimed invention of the present application) of U.S. Patent No. 11,364,551 B2 in view of Pelkey (US Patent No. 9,782,837 B2) and either Chiang (US Pub. No. 2007/0201961 A1) or Degen (EP 1595627 B1).
Claims 44-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 (claims 1-25 read on much of the claimed invention of the present application) of U.S. Patent No. 11,364,551 B2 in view Pelkey (US Patent No. 9,782,837 B2) in view of Walters (US Patent No. 1,583,946).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant challenges the obviousness determination on the ground that the prior art of record fails to disclose opposing spring-biased covers having connector features that interact with connector features of the drill block. Examiner disagrees.
The teaching references suggest the claimed features in combination with Pelkey. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide individual movement of the guide block portions relative to one another; thereby improving the flexibility of the jig. Furthermore, the explanation above concerning relatively quick removal of the block from the guide assembly would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the prior art of record provides motivation to combine the suggestions in the prior art with the Pelkey reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights