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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (ii) from Category A (A second species of the drill guide (Multiguide) as depicted in Figures 27-29); Species (ii) from Category B (A second species of the canting base attachment as depicted in Figures 38-39); and Species (ii) from Category C (A second species of the dowel jig attachment as depicted in Figures 40-47) in the reply filed on 6/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/778,616, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. More specifically, Application No. 16/778,616 fails to provide support for, “a canting base attachment…configured to be removably secured to the drill guide” of claim 1. Be advised that paragraphs [0054-0055] of the specification of Application No. 17/856,218 filed on 7/1/2022 advise the following:
[54] The centering and alignment system disclosed in the parent application kept Multiguide centered on canting base attachments and on individual sliding block adapters used with dowel jig attachments, but Multiguide could not be secured to canting base attachments. Additionally, the parent application required that a sliding pin adapter be provided for each sliding block used with dowel jig attachments.
[55] This CIP application discloses a new centering and alignment system that 1) allows drill guides to be secured to canting base attachments and 2) eliminates the need for sliding pin adapters. A shallow threaded hole is formed at the center of the bottom of all three new drill guides that can receive the threaded end of either a connecting bolt (used with a canting base) or a centering pin (used with the dowel jig). Connecting bolts secure drill guides to canting base attachments. Centering pins engage matching recesses in dowel jig sliding blocks.
As can be seen above, in the system of the parent application (Application No. 16/778,616), the multiguide/drill guide could not be secured to the canting base attachment.
However, in the CIP (Application No. 17/856,218), drill guides are allowed to be secured to the canting base attachment, and this is achieved by using a connecting bolt to secure the drill guide to the canting base attachment, which connecting bolt is received within a threaded hole of said drill guide. Thus, neither independent claim 1, nor the claims depending thereon (claims 2-5), are entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Therefore, the effective filing date of each of claims 1-5 of the current application is 7/1/2022.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/778,616, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. More specifically, Application No. 16/778,616 fails to provide support for at least “a centering pin hole configured to mate the drill guide with the sliding block; and an alignment pin recess configured to align the drill guide with the sliding block” of claim 16. According, neither independent claim 16, nor the claims depending thereon (claims 17-20), are entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Therefore, the effective filing date of each of claims 16-20 of the current application is 7/1/2022.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,383,308 B2 (hereinafter U.S. '308) in view of Germany Publication No. DE 20008356 U1 (hereinafter DE '356).
For double patenting to exist between the rejected claim and a claim of U.S. '308, it must be determined that the rejected claim is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claim and the claim of U.S. '308, and if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
First, with respect to claim 4 of U.S. '308, it includes additional claims elements that are not found in present claim 1. (Please note that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 4, as well as all of the limitations of each of claims 1-3 upon which claim 4 depends either directly or indirectly). However, similar to how the presence of additional structure or elements in a prior art reference does not change the fact that the reference teaches the limitations of a claim in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, the presence of those additional claims elements in claim 4 of U.S. '308 does not change the fact that claim 4 of U.S. '308 teaches elements of present claim 1. Based on the foregoing, while claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes additional claims elements that are not found in present claim 1, the presence of those additional claims elements does not change the fact that claim 4 of U.S. '308 teaches elements of present claim 1, and does not render the claims patentably distinct.
A second difference is that line 2 of present claim 1 sets forth, “a drill guide configured to guide drill bits and limit hole depth” whereas line 10 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 (noting again that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. '308) sets forth, “a drill guide configured to guide the bits.” Noting this, lines 1-3 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 set forth, “A system that allows users to hold and align drilling tools at variable angles to working surfaces while drilling holes to fixed depths.” Since “drilling holes to fixed depths” in and of itself is “limit[ing] hole depth” of those holes being drilled, the drill guide of claim 4 of U.S. '308 is indeed configured to both guide drill bits and limit hole depth. Based on the foregoing, this second difference does not render the claims patentably distinct.
A third difference is that lines 3-4 of present claim 1 set forth, “a shaft having threads interrupted by grooves extending upward from the bottom plate,” whereas lines 8-11 of claim 2 of U.S. '308 (noting again that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 2 of U.S. '308) set forth, “a long, shaft attached to the top surface of the bottom plate at the center of said bottom plate, the shaft having threads and a multiplicity of axial alignment grooves interrupting the threads.” Please be advised that by virtue of the long shaft of claim 2 of U.S. '308 being attached to “the top surface of the bottom plate at the center of said bottom plate,” that the shaft is oriented such that the axial alignment grooves thereof extend upward from/downward to the bottom plate. Thus, as it pertains to the shaft of claim 4 of U.S. '308, the threads thereof are indeed interrupted by grooves extending upward from the bottom plate. Therefore, this third difference does not render the claims patentably distinct.
A fourth difference is that lines 6-9 of present claim 1 set forth, “a top plate moveably attached to the shaft, the top plate being configured to be spaced from the bottom plate and to align the drill bits relative to working surfaces; and a double nut configured to secure the top plate relative to the bottom plate,” whereas lines 14-18 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 (noting yet again that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. '308) set forth, “a top plate being configured to be spaced from the bottom plate and to align the bits relative to working surfaces, and a double nut configured to secure the top plate relative to the bottom plate.” Please be advised that the top plate of claim 4 of U.S. '308 is indeed attached to the shaft. This is known, as claim 3 of U.S. '308 (on which claim 4 of U.S. '308 directly depends), set forth the top plate as comprising “an integral collar.” Noting this, in claim 4 of U.S. '308 it is set forth that the double nut has “an upper section having an axial threaded hole that conforms to the threads of the shaft, and a lower section having an axial threaded hole that conforms to the external collar threads of the integral collar” of the top plate. If, for example, the top plate of claim 4 of U.S. '308 wasn’t attached to the shaft, then the double nut wouldn’t be able to be engaged with both the threads of the shaft and the collar threads of the external collar of the top plate. Furthermore, it is set forth in claim 1 of U.S. '308 (on which claim 4 of U.S. '308 depends via intervening claims 2 and 3) that the double nut is “configured to secure the top plate relative to the bottom plate.” Since it is known from claim 3 of U.S. '308 (on which claim 4 of U.S. '308 directly depends) that the shaft is attached to the bottom plate, then the only way that the double nut (which is attached to both the shaft and the integral collar of the top plate) can secure the top plate “relative to” the bottom plate is if the top plate is moveably attached to the shaft. Based on the foregoing, this fourth difference does not render the claims patentably distinct.
A fifth difference is that lines 13-15 of present claim 1 set forth, “a dowel jig attachment configured to align the drill guide in a plurality of locations spaced from each other for drilling dowel holes in the edges and faces of workpieces,” whereas lines 22-24 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 (noting yet again that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. '308) set forth, “a dowel jig attachment configured to align the drill guide in a plurality of locations spaced from each other for drilling the dowel holes.” Note; however, that in lines 6-7 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 that it set forth that, “to drill precisely aligned and spaced dowel holes on both edges and faces of workpieces.” As such, the fifth difference is just a stylistic difference in which it was in a different portion (the body) of present claim 1 versus the preamble of claim 1 of U.S. '308 in which Applicant established that dowel holes are drilled in edges and faces of workpieces. Based on the foregoing, this fifth difference does not render the claims patentably distinct.
A sixth and last difference is that lines 10-12 of present claim 1 set forth, “a canting base attachment configured to set the drill guide at a tilted orientation relative to flat and curved working surfaces and configured to be removably secured to the drill guide,” whereas lines 19-21 of claim 1 of U.S. '308 (noting yet again that claim 4 of U.S. '308 includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. '308) set forth, “a canting base attachment configured to set the drill guide at a tilted orientation relative to the working surface.” First, please be advised that the canting base attachment of claim 4 of U.S. '308 will inherently set the drill guide at a tilted orientation to whichever shaped working surface, whether that be flat or curved, is provided. Please note that present claim 1 is directed toward, “A drilling assist system,” and the claimed “flat and working surfaces” of present claim 1 are not elements of the claimed drilling assist system. Thus, whichever of a flat or curved working surface is provided at a given time, by virtue of the canting base attachment of the drilling assist system, the drill guide thereof is able to set, for example, to a tilted orientation to that provided working surface.
Claim 4 of U.S. '308 though, does not disclose the canting base attachment being “configured to be removably secured to the drill guide.”
DE '356 though, shows therein a drilling assist system (1) comprising a drill guide (23) configured to guide drill bits and limit hole depth, and as further comprising a canting base attachment (4) configured, by means of its bearing parts (38, 39) with arcuate slots (51, 52), to align the drill guide (23) at a tilted orientation (see Figure 3) relative to working surfaces, e.g. flat and curved working surfaces. Moreover, DE '356 discloses the canting base attachment (4) as being configured to be removably secured to the drill guide (23). Please note that when the clamping screws (49, 50) (see Figures 2 and 3) are unscrewed from the threaded engagement of the corresponding clamping pieces (53, 53), removal of said clamping screws (49, 50) from both the clamping pieces (53, 53) and arcuate slots (51, 52) results in the unit (3), to which is attached the drill guide (23), being removable (as is desired) from the canting base attachment (4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removably secured the drill guide of claim 4 of U.S. '308 to the canting base attachment of claim 4 of U.S. '308 in accordance with the disclosure of DE '356, so as to provide the advantage of modularity, which modularity enables the drill guide to be attached to a different attachment as is desired. Based on the foregoing, claim 4 of U.S. '308/DE '308 reads on the limitations of present claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “drill bits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “drill bits” and “the” should also be inserted before “working surfaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7 of the claim, “to” should be inserted before “align”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 19 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “dowel holes”. 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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-20 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.
Lines 4-5 of claim 1 state, “a shaft having threads interrupted by grooves extending upward from the bottom plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed grooves of claim 1 are the spiral grooves that are located between individual threads of the shaft, or if the claimed grooves of claim 1 are the axially-extending grooves that circumferentially interrupt the threads of the shaft and that are separated from one another with respect to, for example, a circumferential direction. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because when the drill guide is disposed at an angle, for example, it is unclear as to how or in what way that the grooves are “extending upward from the bottom plate.” Noting this, do the grooves only extend upward from the bottom plate in certain orientations of the drill guide?
Line 9 of claim 1 states, “a double nut.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a double nut” is referring to a singular nut that comprises two different threads, or if “a double nut” is actually referring to, for example, two different nuts (each having a respective thread) that are attached in some manner so as to form a double nut.
Line 11 of claim 1 states, “flat and curved working surfaces.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “flat and curved working surfaces” are the same working surfaces or are different working surfaces than the “working surfaces” previously claimed in each of lines 3 and 7 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the edges and faces of workpieces" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 state, “the edges and faces of workpieces.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed workpieces are different than the “working surfaces” of lines 3 and 7 and the “flat and curved working surfaces” of line 11, or if the claimed workpieces are related in some manner to the “working surfaces” of lines 3 and 7 and the “flat and curved working surfaces” of line 11.
Lines 2-3 of claim 4 state, “the canting base attachment and the dowel jig attachment including a plurality of unthreaded alignment pin recesses.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the canting base attachment and the dowel jig attachment each comprises a respective plurality of unthreaded alignment pin recesses, or if instead, it is only collectively that the canting base attachment and the dowel jig attachment include a plurality of unthreaded alignment pin recesses.
Lines 1-2 of claim 5 state, “the bottom plate and the top plate including a plurality of holes of different sizes.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the top plate and the bottom plate each comprises a respective plurality of holes of different sizes, or Applicant is instead intending to refer to the top plate and the bottom plate collectively as including a plurality of holes of different sizes.
Line 2 of claim 5 states, “drill bits of different sizes.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “drill bits of different sizes” are the same drill bits or are different drill bits as the “drill bits” of line 3 of claim 1, on which claim 5 depends via intervening claim 4.
Lines 5-6 of claim 16 state, “a shaft having threads interrupted by grooves extending upward from the bottom plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed grooves of claim 16 are the spiral grooves that are located between individual threads of the shaft, or if the claimed grooves of claim 16 are the axially-extending grooves that circumferentially interrupt the threads of the shaft and that are separated from one another with respect to, for example, a circumferential direction. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because when the drill guide is disposed at an angle, for example, it is unclear as to how or in what way that the grooves are “extending upward from the bottom plate.” Noting this, do the grooves only extend upward from the bottom plate in certain orientations of the drill guide?
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the working surfaces" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that Applicant set forth “a working surface” not “working surfaces” in line 4 of claim 16.
Line 9 of claim 16 states, “a double nut.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a double nut” is referring to a singular nut that comprises two different threads, or if “a double nut” is actually referring to, for example, two different nuts (each having a respective thread) that are attached in some manner so as to form a double nut.
Line 11 of claim 16 states, “flat and cylindrical working surfaces.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear if the “flat and cylindrical working surfaces” are the same working surfaces or are different working surfaces than the “working surfaces” previously claimed in line 4 of claim 16 and the “working surfaces” previously claimed in line 8 of claim 16.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the edges and faces of workpieces" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 13-14 of claim 16 state, “the edges and faces of workpieces.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed workpieces are different than the “working surface” of line 4, the “working surfaces” of line 8, and the “flat and cylindrical working surfaces” of line 11, or if the claimed workpieces are related in some manner to the “working surface” of line 4, the “working surfaces” of line 8, and the “flat and cylindrical working surfaces” of line 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the plurality of outboard sliding blocks" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that in line 16 of the claim, Applicant previously set forth “a plurality of sliding blocks” not “a plurality of outboard sliding blocks.”
Lines 18-19 of claim 16 state, “a working surface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a working surface” of lines 18-19 is one of, for example, the “working surface” of line 4, the “working surfaces” of line 8, and the “flat and cylindrical working surfaces” of line 11.
Lines 20-23 of claim 16 recite, “the sliding block” on two occasions. Each instance is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular sliding block of “a plurality of sliding blocks” of line 16 and “the plurality of outboard sliding blocks” of line 17 that each instance of “the sliding block” is intended to reference.
Line 2 of claim 17 states, “a workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a workpiece” of claim 17 is a different workpiece than or is one of the workpieces of the “workpieces” previously set forth in line 14 of claim 16.
Line 1 of claim 19 states, “the sliding blocks.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to particular sliding blocks of “a plurality of sliding blocks” of line 16 of claim 16 and “the plurality of outboard sliding blocks” of line 17 of claim 16 that “the sliding blocks” is intended to reference.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “standard” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. That is to say, what differentiates a standard spacing notch from a nonstandard spacing notch, for example?
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germany Pub. No. DE 20008356 U1 (hereinafter DE '356) in view of Cain (US 0907735 A), and further in view of Ishii (Japan Publication No. JP 2008138794 A).
A machine translation of DE '356 is relied upon below, and said machine translation has been provided with this office action. Likewise, a machine translation of Ishii is also relied upon below, and said machine translation of Ishii has been provided with this office action.
Claim 1: Figures 1 and 2 of DE '356 shows therein a drilling assist system (1) comprising a drill guide, a canting base attachment (4), and a dowel jig attachment (3). With regards to the drill guide, Figures 2 and 3 show it as comprising a top plate (23) having a plurality of bores (25) that provide for guiding drill bits and limiting hole depth. As such, the drill guide (of which the top plate (23) is a part) is configured to guide the drill bits and limit hole depth. As can be seen below in annotated Figure 3 of DE '356, in addition to the top plate (23), the drill guide comprises each of a shaft (24) and a bottom plate. Discussion of these elements will be provided momentarily.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, with regards to the canting base attachment (4), it (4) is configured, by means of its bearing parts (38, 39) with arcuate slots (51, 52), to align the drill guide at a tilted orientation (see Figure 3) relative to working surfaces, e.g. flat and curved working surfaces. Moreover, DE '356 discloses the canting base attachment (4) as being configured to be removably secured to the drill guide. Please note that when the two clamping screws (49, 50) (see Figures 2 and 3 of DE '356) are unscrewed from the threaded engagement of the corresponding clamping pieces (53, 53), removal of said clamping screws (49, 50) from both the clamping pieces (53, 53) and arcuate slots (51, 52) results in the dowel jig attachment (3), to which is attached the drill guide, being removable (as is desired) from the canting base attachment (4). Thus, in at least this way, the canting base attachment (4) is configured to be removably secured to the drill guide.
With regards to the dowel jig attachment (3), via its two end parts (40, 41) thereof and the corresponding two clamping screws (49, 50), the dowel just attachment (3) is configured to align the drill guide (23) in a plurality of locations spaced from each other, e.g. angularly separated locations, for drilling holes, e.g. dowel holes, in the edges and faces of provided workpieces in which the dowel holes are to be machined.
Regarding the drill guide, as was stated above, it comprises each of the top plate (23), the shaft (24), and the bottom plate. As to the top plate (23), it is moveably attached to the shaft (24) such that the top plate (23) is able to be indexed. Also, as can be seen on the previous page within annotated Figure 3 of DE '356, the top plate (23) is configured to be spaced from the bottom plate and to align the drill bits relative to working surfaces. Note that the top plate (23) is spaced from the bottom plate in that, for example, whichever bore (25) of the top plate (23) has been selected by an operator, that portion of the top plate (23) in which the selected bore (25) is formed is spaced from a periphery of the bottom plate such that the drill bits have clearance to pass through the top plate (23) and the selected bore (25) in order to engage the work surfaces. Please also note that it is by means of the plurality of bores (25) thereof that the top plate (23) is configured to align the drill bits relative to the working surfaces.
As to the bottom plate, it is configured to locate the drill bits relative to the working surfaces. Please note that the bottom plate is attached to the two end parts (40, 41) of the dowel jig attachment (3) by means of opposing parts (19, 20). Noting this, it is to the bottom plate that the top plate (23) is attached by means of the shaft (24). Noting this configuration, when the two end parts (40, 41) are tilted, the bottom plate is tilted due to its connection the end part (40, 41), and the top plate (23) in turn is tilted due to its connection to the bottom plate. As such, by tilting the top plate (23), through the plurality of bores (25) of which the drill bits are aligned, the bottom plate serves to locate the top plate (23) and the drill bits at an angular position with respect to the working surfaces. Thus, in at least this way, the bottom plate is configured to locate the drill bits relative to the working surfaces.
DE '356 though, does not provide disclosure on the shaft (24) “having threads interrupted by grooves extending upward from the bottom plate.”
Figures 4 and 5 of Cain though, show a drill guide comprising a top plate (4) having a plurality of bores (25) that provide for guiding drill bits and limiting hole depth. In addition to the top plate (4), the drill guide has a bottom plate (1) and a shaft (9, 10). Regarding the shaft (9, 10), it comprises a plurality of threads that are vertically interrupted by spiral grooves extending upward from the bottom plate (1). Please be advised the drill guide further comprises a nut (8) having internal threads secured upon the plurality of threads of the shank (9) of the shaft (9, 10) [Cain, lines 72-73]. Also, note that Figure 5 of Cain shows the bottom plate as having an opening in which is accommodated the nut (8). Lastly, the distal end of the shank (9) is threaded into a central hole (12) of the bottom plate (1) [Cain, lines 76-77]. With this setup, the top plate (4) can be indexed via the head (10) of the shaft (9, 10) so as to align a selected one of the plurality of bores (25) of the top plate (4) with a workpiece disposed in a groove (20) of the drill guide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the shaft (9, 10) and nut (7) of Cain for the shaft (24) of DE '356, as this is a substitution of one known means for the indexing of a top plate (having a plurality of bores) with respect to a bottom plate for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the shaft (9, 10) of Cain connecting through the top plate (23) of DE '356 and into the bottom plate of DE '356 such that clockwise and counterclockwise rotation of the shaft (9, 10) via the head (10) results in the top plate (23) of DE '356 being indexed such that one of the plurality of bores (25) is selected for drilling of the work surfaces. In making this substitution, note that the bottom plate of DE '356, in accordance with the disclosure of Cain, is provided with the threaded central hole (12) of Cain and with the opening of Cain in which the nut (8) is located. Based on the foregoing, the modified drill guide of DE '356 comprises the top plate (23) and bottom plate of DE '356, as well as the shaft (9, 10) and nut (8) of Cain, wherein the shank (9) of the shaft (9, 10) extends through the top plate (23) of DE '356 and engages the internal threads of the corresponding nut (8) with its (9) plurality of (interrupted) threads.
In the modified drill guide of DE '356, the nut (7) thereof provides for the securing of the top plate (23) relative to the bottom plate. DE '356/Cain though, does not provide disclosure on the nut (7) of the modified drill guide being “a double nut.” Please note that the plurality of (interrupted) threads on the shank (9) of the shaft (9, 10) having not been disclosed by Cain as being embodied as a double thread, for example.
Figures 1 and 2 of Ishii show therein a double nut (20), and a shaft having a double thread (11, 15), where a male threaded portion (11) and a tapping screw portion (15) of the double thread (11, 15) are interrupted by spiral grooves. (Note that depending upon the orientation of the shaft at a given time, the spiral grooves that interrupt the double thread (11, 15) interrupt the grooves by extending, for example, substantially horizontally or vertically. For example, when the shaft is oriented horizontally as it is in Figure 1 of Ishii, the grooves interrupt the double thread (11, 15) by extending horizontally. However, should the shaft be oriented vertically, for example, the grooves would interrupt the double thread (11, 15) by extending vertically). With this setup of the double thread (11, 15), the male threaded portion (11) is screwed into a female threaded portion (21) of the double nut (20), while the tapping screw portion (15) is screwed into a threaded material wall portion (25) of the double nut (20). With this formation of threads, the tapping screw portion (15) and a female screw portion (26) of the threaded material wall portion (25) are in close contact and the fitting is extremely firm. Thus, the screwing in of the male threaded portion (11) and screwing in of the tapping screw portion (15) are combined to prevent the female threaded portion (21) of the double nut (20) from rotating back [Machine Translation of Ishii, page 6, lines 6-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the plurality of threads on the shank (9) of the shaft (9, 10) of DE '356/Cain with the double thread (11, 15) of Ishii and to have replaced the internal threads of the corresponding nut (8) of DE '356/Cain with the female threaded portion (21) and threaded material wall portion (25) of Ishii, so as to provide the advantage of an extremely firm fitting in which the modified nut (8) is provided from rotating back, thereby keeping the top plate (23) tightly secured. As a result of this modification, the modified nut (8) is a “double nut” as it (8) comprises the female threaded portion (21) and threaded material wall portion (25) of Ishii. Thus, the modified drill guide of DE '356/Cain/Ishii comprises the double nut (8), which is configured to secure the top plate (23) relative to the bottom plate.
Moreover, the modified drill guide of DE '356/Cain/Ishii comprises the shaft (9, 10), wherein the shank (9) thereof comprises the double thread (11, 15) of Ishii. As was noted above, the male threaded portion (11) and the tapping screw portion (15) of the double thread (11, 15) are interrupted by grooves, and at least when the drill guide is oriented vertically, these grooves extend upwardly from the bottom plate so as to interrupt the male threaded (11) and tapping screw portions (15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended (without broadening) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722