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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “spindle” which is recited by Applicant in at least claims 1, 40, and 41, is not assigned a reference character in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because while the “spindle” is shown, the “spindle” is not pointed to with a reference character in the drawings filed on 10/3/2022. (Please be advised that a reference character is not used in the specification when discussing the “spindle”). 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 1-2 of the claim, “the drilling machine comprises” should be changed to, “the drilling machine comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “reader and tag coils” should be changed to “reader coil and tag coil”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, “reader and tag coils” should be changed to “reader coil and tag coil”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 1-2 of the claim, “the drilling machine comprises” should be changed to, “the drilling machine comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim, “reader and tag coils” should be changed to “reader coil and tag coil”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 16 of the claim, “with the axle of rotation” should be changed to “with respect to the axle of rotation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 1-2 of the claim, “the drilling machine comprises” should be changed to, “the drilling machine comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “reader and tag coils” should be changed to “reader coil and tag coil”. 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, 2, 5-7, 9-21, 40, and 41 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 3-4 of claim 1 state, “the spindle comprising a drill bit interface arranged to hold a drill bit and to rotate the drill bit about an axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that in line 1 of claim 1 it is set forth that the drilling machine is “for a core drill,” it is unclear if the “drill bit” of lines 3-4 is embodied as the “core drill” or if the “drill bit” is a separate entity than the “core drill”. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
Line 5 of claim 1 states, “the drilling machine comprising a tag reader connected to a reader coil.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written it appears that the “tag reader” and the “reader coil” are embodied as separate elements that are connected to one another, but in at least Figure 3, the reader coil (220) appears to be an element of the tag reader (125). As such, it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “tag reader [is] connected to a reader coil.”
Lines 5-6 of claim 1 state, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” What is meant by “arranged” in this context? As can be seen in Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings, for example, there is a large distance between the reader coil (220) and the drill bit interface (111). Noting this, how or in what way is the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface” as is claimed?
Lines 1-2 of claim 2 state, “wherein the drill bit is a core drill bit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “core drill bit” is the same element or is a different element than the “core drill” previously recited in line 1 of claim 1. In other words, what is the relationship between the “core drill” of line 1 of claim 1, and the “drill bit” of line 3 of claim 1, and the “core drill bit” of line 2 of claim 2.
Lines 2-3 of claim 6 and each of lines 3-5 of claim 7 state, “the axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the rotation speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 3 of claim 15 states, “an undesired operating region.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “an undesired operating region.” Is the “undesired operating region” the region where a risk for glazing is increased? Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “an undesired operating region in which a risk of glazing is increased, the undesired operation region comprising undesired combinations of tangential velocity and applied drill bit pressure”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the tag" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that Applicant previously set forth “a tag coil” in claim 1 (on which claim 20 depends via intervening claim 18) but not “a tag”.
Lines 3-4 of claim 40 state, “wherein the spindle comprises a drill bit interface arranged to hold a drill bit and to rotate the drill bit about an axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that in line 1 of claim 40 it is set forth that the drilling machine is “for a core drill,” it is unclear if the “drill bit” of lines 3-4 is embodied as the “core drill” or if the “drill bit” is a separate entity than the “core drill”. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
Line 5 of claim 40 states, “the drilling machine comprises a tag reader connected to a reader coil.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written it appears that the “tag reader” and the “reader coil” are embodied as separate elements that are connected to one another, but in at least Figure 3, the reader coil (220) appears to be an element of the tag reader (125). As such, it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “tag reader [is] connected to a reader coil.”
Lines 5-6 of claim 40 state, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” What is meant by “arranged” in this context? As can be seen in Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings, for example, there is a large distance between the reader coil (220) and the drill bit interface (111). Noting this, how or in what way is the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface” as is claimed?
Lines 12, 13, and 16 of claim 40 each state, “the axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
Lines 3-4 of claim 41 state, “wherein the spindle comprises a drill bit interface arranged to hold a drill bit and to rotate the drill bit about an axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that in line 1 of claim 41 it is set forth that the drilling machine is “for a core drill,” it is unclear if the “drill bit” of lines 3-4 is embodied as the “core drill” or if the “drill bit” is a separate entity than the “core drill”. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
Line 5 of claim 41 states, “the drilling machine comprises a tag reader connected to a reader coil.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written it appears that the “tag reader” and the “reader coil” are embodied as separate elements that are connected to one another, but in at least Figure 3, the reader coil (220) appears to be an element of the tag reader (125). As such, it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “tag reader [is] connected to a reader coil.”
Lines 5-6 of claim 41 state, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” What is meant by “arranged” in this context? As can be seen in Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings, for example, there is a large distance between the reader coil (220) and the drill bit interface (111). Noting this, how or in what way is the “reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface” as is claimed?
Lines 12, 13, and 16 of claim 40 each state, “the axle of rotation.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “axle of rotation” is a tangible element, i.e. is it actually an axle, or is the “axle of rotation” non-tangible and is actually an axis, for example.
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 1, 2, 5-7, 9-21, 40, and 41 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.
Lines 5-6 of claim 1 state, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” Likewise, lines 5-6 of each of claim 40 and claim 41 state, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” Each recitation of this limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 10/3/2022 and the drawings filed on 10/3/2022, they are not in agreement with one another. On page 22 of the specification, lines 21-23 thereof state, “The reader coil 220 is arranged at the drill bit interface 121 and surrounds the spindle to inductively couple to tag coil 210 (also illustrated in Figure 2) arranged on the drill bit 110.” With respect to the drawings though, it can be seen in Figure 2 thereof that the reader coil (220) and the drill bit interface (121) are axially separated from one another by an axial length/distance that is at least as long as the axial length of the flat surface (250) of the spindle. Due to this separation of the reader coil (220) and the drill bit interface (121) by the aforesaid axial length/distance, it can be seen that the reader coil (220) is not arranged at the drill bit interface (121) as is claimed. Based on the foregoing, Figure 2 does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.” Since only Figure 2 shows the reader coiler (220) disposed in relation to the drill bit interface (121), none of the remaining figures of the drawings provides disclosure for, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface.”
Based on the foregoing, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A).
Please be advised that Clausi was previously cited on the IDS filed on 8/27/2024.
Please be advised that Deeny was previously cited on the PTO-892 mailed on 3/18/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 5 of Clausi shows a drilling machine (35) for a core drill, the drilling machine (35) comprising a motor (36) arranged to power a spindle (37). As to the spindle (37), it comprises a drill bit interface disposed at a distal end thereof that is arranged to hold a drill bit (1) and to rotate the drill bit (1) about an axle of rotation (10).
Regarding the drilling machine, it comprises a tag reader (25) which interfaces with an RFID (23, 24) [paragraph 0026].
Regarding the RFID (23, 24), it is connected to a tag antenna (26) that is formed in a tubular shaft (12) of the drill bit (1). The tag antenna (26) though, does not constitute a “tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bill and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit.”
Figure 1C of Ellison et al. though, shows an RFIDT (28a) disposed at an upper end of a shaft (10) below a mounting interface (14). Please be advised that the RFIDT (28a) comprises an integrated circuit and an antenna/tag coil (see Figure 2). Per Ellison et al., antennas of RFIDT’s according to the present invention have a diameter between ¼” to 10” [column 3, lines 53-57]. Please be advised that Ellison et al. discloses “exteriorly affixed” RFIDT’s [column 4, lines 15-17] which the RFIDT (28a) of Figure 1C is. More specifically, the RFIDT (28a) is exteriorly affixed to the shaft (10) (around the exterior circumference thereof) below the mounting interface (14) (see Figure 1C). Also, per Ellison et al., the RFIDT (28a) may be exteriorly affixed with a multilayer wrap that is shown in Figures 26 and 28, for example [column 8, lines 26-29]. Please be advised that Ellison et al. provides disclosure on energizing the RFIDT apparatus by directing energizing energy to the antenna apparatus, wherein the RFIDT apparatus being energized produces a signal [column 30, lines 59-61]. Lastly, per Ellison et al., the RFIDT (28a) can be energized and/or read and/or written to [column 21, lines 1-3].
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 RFIDT (28a) of Ellison et al., (the RFIDT (28a) including the integrated circuit, antenna, and multilayer wrap of Figures 26, 28) for the RFID (23, 24) and the tag antenna (26) of Clausi, as this is substitution of one known identification means for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the drill bit (1) being able to be identified via the RFIDT (28a) and to have data concerning usage of the drill bit (1) written to said RFIDT (28a). In making this substitution, the RFIDT (28a) is affixed by means by the multilayer wrap of Figures 26 and 28 of Ellison et al. to the exterior of the tubular shaft (12) of the drill bit (1) below the mounting interface (34) of the drill bit (1) in accordance with the disclosure of Ellison et al. As such, Clausi in view of Ellison et al. discloses an RFIDT (28a) including a tag coil/antenna disposed at the tubular shaft (12) of the drill bit (1) and extending around an exterior circumference of said shaft (12) of the drill bit (1).
Clausi/Ellison et al. though, also does not disclose the tag reader (25) being “connected to a reader coil, wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to [the] tag coil”.
However, Deeny teaches the connection of a tag reader to a reader coil (30) (see Figure 2), wherein the reader coil (30) is arranged at a bit interface (Figure 4) and surrounding a spindle (88) to inductively couple [Deeny, paragraph 0019] to a tag coil (59) disposed at a shaft (35) of a bit and extending around a circumference of the shaft (35) of the bit. Via inductive coupling, inductive signal transfer is possible to/from an RFID in the bit (12) [Deeny, paragraph 0019].
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 connected the tag reader (25) of Clausi to the reader coil (30) of Deeny, so as to provide the advantage of being able to inductively couple to the tag coil/antenna of the RFIDT (28a) of the modified drilling machine (35) of Clausi such that the tag coil/antenna of the RFIDT (28a) can be energized and the integrated circuit of the RFIDT (28a) can be read and/or written to. In making this modification, the reader coil (30) of Deeny is arranged at the drill bit interface of Clausi and surrounding the spindle (37) in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny.
Clausi though, does not provide disclosure on the drilling machine (35) further comprising, “a drilling machine control unit connected to the tag reader, wherein the drilling machine control unit is arranged to read data associated with the drill bit via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils, thereby obtaining information about the drill bit.”
Figures 1 and 5 of Tsujino though, show a drilling machine control unit (8), which is connected to a tag reader (30) through an interface (41). Please be advised that the drilling machine control unit (8) is configured to read data associated with a tool/drill bit (6) via inductively coupled reader (32) and tag coils (22) (see Figure 5), thereby obtaining information about the tool/drill bit (6) [Tsujino, column 6, lines 45-59]. Please be advised that the drilling machine control unit (8) comprises memory into which received tool data is saved [column 6, lines 28-32].
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 provided the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the drilling machine control unit (8) and interface (41) of Tsujino, so as to provide the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the advantage of being able to obtain and store received tool/ drill bit data to the memory of the drilling machine control unit (8) of Tsujino.
In making the above modification to the drilling machine (35) of Clausi, please be advised that the drilling machine control unit (8) of Tsujino is connected to the tag reader (25) of Clausi via the interface (41) of Tsujino. Noting this, due to this connection between the drilling machine control unit (8) and the tag reader (25), said drilling machine control unit (8) of Clausi is arranged to read data associated with the drill bit (1) via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils, thereby obtaining information about the drill bit (1).
Claim 2: Clausi discloses the drilling machine as claimed in claim 1, wherein the drill bit (1) is a core drill bit comprising cutting segments (3) for cutting stone and concrete paragraph [0017].
Claim 12: The drilling machine control unit (8) of Tsujino is connected to the tag reader (25) of Clausi via the interface (41) of Tsujino. Noting this, due to this connection between the drilling machine control unit (8) and the tag reader (25), said drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to read data associated with the drill bit (1) by way of the inductively coupled reader and tag coils. Noting this, Clausi provides disclosure on stored data of the drill bit (1) including diameter of the cutting section of the drill bit [Clausi, paragraph 0024]. Based on the foregoing, the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to obtain information related to the diameter of the drill bit (1) based on the data associated with the drill bit (1) read by way of the inductively coupled reader and tag coils.
Claim 18: The drilling machine control unit (8) of the modified drilling machine (35) of Clausi is arranged to determine and to store drill bit usage information related to at least drill time (duration of use) and (optimal) drill bit applied pressure [Clausi, paragraph 0024].
Claim 20: The drilling machine control unit (8) of Tsujino is connected to the tag reader (25) of Clausi via the interface (41) of Tsujino. Noting this, due to this connection between the drilling machine control unit (8) and the tag reader (25), the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to read data associated with the drill bit (1) and to write data to the RFIDT (28a) of the drill bit (1) via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils. Noting that per Ellison et al., the RFIDT (28a) can be energized and/or read and/or written to [Ellison et al., column 21, lines 1-3], and further noting that the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to determine and to store drill bit usage information related to at least drill time (duration of use) [Clausi, paragraph 0024], the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to send the drill bit usage information (drill time) to a memory comprised in the tag/integrated circuit of the RFIDT (28a), via the inductive coupling between the reader and tag coils.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A), and further in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1).
Please be advised that the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 4/6/2020, while the effectively filed date of Wachholz is 5/16/2019. Thus, the effectively filed date of 5/16/2019 of Wachholz is prior to the effective filing date of 4/6/2020 of the claimed invention. Wachholz therefore constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 5: The reader coil (30) of Deeny in the modified drilling machine (35) Clausi is not disclosed as being “arranged for radio frequency identification, RFID, communication in a 13.56 MHz RFID frequency band.”
Wachholz though, teaches RFID communication with both UHF (868 MHz) and HF (13.56 MHz) variants [paragraph 0007].
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 arranged the reader coil (30) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi to have RFID communication in each of the UHF (868 MHz) and the HF (13.56 MHz) frequency bands in accordance with the disclosure of Wachholz, so as to provide the reader coil (30) with the advantage of optionality in being able to communicate with the RFIDT (28a) of the drilling machine (35) in both ultra-high frequency and high frequency bands.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A), and further in view of Blodt (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0278560 A1).
Claims 6 and 7: With regards to the reader coil (30) in the modified drilling machine (35) Clausi, disclosure is not provided on, “the reader coil is arranged to generate an H-field having an asymmetric field strength about the axle of rotation” (claim 6), and wherein “the reader coil is wound along an asymmetric path about the axle of rotation, thereby generating the H-field having asymmetric field strength about the axle of rotation” (claim 7).
However, Blodt teaches a coil arrangement (12) which includes at least one coil and at least one coil core, wherein the coil is arranged/wound in such a way asymmetrically on the coil core that the produced magnetic field is asymmetric. If the coil has a smaller separation from a first end region of the coil core than from a second end region of the coil core, then the flux density of the magnetic field is greater at the first end region than at the second end region. However, the spreading of the magnetic field at the second end region is then greater than at the first end region of the coil core [Blodt, paragraph 0013].
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 modified the drilling machine of Clausi such that the reader coil (30) thereof is arranged to generate an H-field having an asymmetric field strength about the axle of rotation and wound along an asymmetric path about said axle of rotation, thereby generating the H-field having asymmetric field strength, as taught in Blodt, so as to be able to produce an H-field that that is greater in one region another than in another region depending upon a rotation angle of the spindle (37).
Claim 9: The drilling machine control unit (8) of Tsujino is connected to the tag reader (25) of Clausi via the interface (41) of Tsujino. Noting this, due to this connection between the drilling machine control unit (8) and the tag reader (25), said drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to read data associated with the drill bit (1) by way of the inductively coupled reader and tag coils. Regarding the inductively coupled reader coil (30), it is arranged at the drill bit interface of Clausi and surrounding the spindle (37) in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny. During rotation of said spindle (37) that the reader coil (30) surrounds, there is a change in impedance over time, that is to say a periodic impedance variation. Noting this, in the preferred embodiment, rotation speed of the spindle (37) falls under the primary operating parameters of the core drill bit to be identified [Clausi, paragraph 0013]. Noting this, in having provided the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the reader coil (30), the predictable results of the substitution would have a result of determining spindle rotation speed based on periodic reader coil impedance variation during spindle rotation.
Claim 10: The reader coil (30) is arranged for asymmetrical coupling with the tag coil/antenna of the RFIDT (28a) of the modified drilling machine (35) of Clausi during rotation of the spindle (37) thereby changing the reluctance seen by a reader coil flux during rotation of the spindle (37). This is because in accordance with Blodt’s teachings on coil arrangement, the reader coil (30) thereof is wound along an asymmetric path about said axle of rotation. Due to being wound along the asymmetric path about said axle of rotation, asymmetrical coupling between the reader coil (30) and the tag coil/antenna of the RFIDT (28a) occurs.
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A), and Drexl (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0297235 A1).
Claim 11: Disclosure is not provided on the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi being arranged to “determine the rotation speed of the spindle based on a voltage or current associated with the motor and/or based on a rotation speed sensor arranged in connection to the spindle.”
Drexl though, shows in Figure 1 drilling machine (1) comprising a drilling machine control unit (18) and sensors (20), wherein the drilling machine control unit (18) is designed in such a way that it detects all parameters of a core drill (10) and, in particular, all parameters of a drive (14), which are measured by the sensors (20) of the core drill (10). These parameters include, for example, the engaged gear of gearbox (16), rotational speed of the drive (14), the torque generated by the drive (14), the rotational speed of drilling tool (50), the applied and/or output power of the drive (14), the applied amperage of the drive (14) [Drexl, paragraph 0036]. In other words, rotational speed, torque, applied amperage, and applied and/or output power of the drive (14), are all measured through use of sensors (20). Noting this, rotational speed of a spindle (22) of the drilling machine (1) corresponds to rotational speed of the drive (14). Thus, the drilling machine control unit (18) of the drilling machine (1) is arranged to determine the rotation speed of the spindle (22) based on a rotation speed sensor (20) arranged in connection to the spindle (22) via intervening structure.
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 provided the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the sensors (20) of Drexl and to have modified the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi to detect all parameters of the corresponding drive/motor (36) in accordance with the disclosure of Drexl, so as to provide the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the advantage of being able to detect parameters including rotational speed of the drive (36), the torque generated by the drive (36), the rotational speed of drilling bit (1), the applied and/or output power of the drive (36), and the applied amperage of drive (36).
Noting the above, the rotational speed of a spindle (37) of the drilling machine (35) corresponds to rotational speed of the drive (36). Thus, the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) is arranged to determine the rotation speed of the spindle (37) based on a rotation speed sensor (20) of Drexl arranged in connection to the spindle (37) by way of intervening structure.
Claim 13: First, as was advised above in the rejection of claim 12, the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to obtain information related to the diameter of the drill bit (1) based on the data associated with the drill bit (1) read via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils. Although disclosure is provided on obtaining information related to diameter of the drill bit (1), disclosure is not provided on, “an obtained rotation speed of the spindle.”
Drexl though, shows in Figure 1 drilling machine (1) comprising a drilling machine control unit (18) and sensors (20), wherein the drilling machine control unit (18) is designed in such a way that it detects all parameters of a core drill (10) and, in particular, all parameters of a drive (14), which are measured by the sensors (20) of the core drill (10). These parameters include, for example, the engaged gear of gearbox (16), rotational speed of the drive (14), the torque generated by the drive (14), the rotational speed of drilling tool (50), the applied and/or output power of the drive (14), the applied amperage of the drive (14) [Drexl, paragraph 0036]. In other words, rotational speed, torque, applied amperage, and applied and/or output power of the drive (14), are all measured through use of sensors (20). Noting this, rotational speed of a spindle (22) of the drilling machine (1) corresponds to rotational speed of the drive (14). Thus, the drilling machine control unit (18) of the drilling machine (1) is arranged to determine/obtain the rotation speed of the spindle (22).
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 provided the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the sensors (20) of Drexl and to have modified the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi to detect all parameters of the corresponding drive/motor (36) in accordance with the disclosure of Drexl, so as to provide the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the advantage of being able to detect parameters including rotational speed of the drive (36), the torque generated by the drive (36), the rotational speed of drilling bit (1), the applied and/or output power of the drive (36), and the applied amperage of drive (36).
Noting the above, the rotational speed of a spindle (37) of the drilling machine (35) corresponds to rotational speed of the drive (36). Thus, the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) is arranged to determine/obtain the rotation speed of the spindle (37). With having obtained the rotation speed of the spindle (37) as a result of the modification in light of the disclosure of Drexl, and because the information related to diameter of the drill bit (1) was already obtained prior to the modification in light of the disclosure of Drexel, the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to determine a tangential velocity associated with the drill bit (1) based on the obtained rotation speed of the spindle (37) and on the diameter of the drill bit (1).
Claim 14: The drilling machine control unit (8) of the modified drilling machine (35) of Clausi is arranged to determine/obtain information related to (optimal) drill bit applied pressure [Clausi, paragraph 0024].
Next, it is reiterated from the rejection of claim 13 that with having obtained the rotation speed of the spindle (37) as a result of the modification in light of the disclosure of Drexl, and because the information related to diameter of the drill bit (1) was already obtained prior to the modification in light of the disclosure of Drexel, the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to determine a tangential velocity associated with the drill bit (1) based on the obtained rotation speed of the spindle (37) and on the diameter of the drill bit (1).
As a result of the drilling machine control unit (8) being arranged to determine the tangential velocity and further being arranged to determine/obtain information related to (optimal) drill bit applied pressure, the drilling machine control unit (8) is arranged to control drilling by the drilling machine (35) based on the tangential velocity that is associated with the drill bit (1) and on the (optimal) drill bit applied pressure.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A), and further in view of Butler (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2016/0048712 A1).
Please be advised that Butler was previously cited on the PTO-892 mailed on 3/18/2025.
Claim 17: Disclosure is not provided on the tag reader (25) of the drilling machine (35) Clausi being “connected to the reader coil via a variable impedance matching network, wherein the tag reader is arranged to control the variable impedance network to optimize the inductive coupling between the reader coil and the tag coil.”
However, Butler teaches a variable impedance matching network for matching impedance to energize the RFID tags (102; figure 20), where an impedance mismatch that is created may reduce the ability to energize the RFID tags [paragraphs [0096] and [0413].
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 modified the drilling machine (35) Clausi to utilize the variable impedance matching network of Butler for matching impedance between the tag rag reader (25) and the reader coil (30), so as to lower risk of not being able to energize the RFIDT (28a) of the drilling machine (35). As such, the drilling machine control unit (8) and/or the tag reader (25) is arranged to control said network to optimize the inductive coupling between the reader and tag coils.
Claim 21: Disclosure is not provided on the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi being “arranged to execute an authentication procedure based on the data associated with the drill bit read via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils, thereby preventing unauthorized use of the drilling machine.”
However, Butler teaches [paragraph 0382] to execute an authentication procedure that is based on the data associated with the drill bit read via the inductively coupled reader (140) and tag coil (102), thereby preventing unauthorized use of the drilling machine. Cryptography implemented between the reader and the RFID tag may prevent RFID tag cloning, a form of security breach associated with unauthorized reading and reuse of the RFID tag commands.
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 modified the drilling machine (35) Clausi to include an authentication procedure, as taught in Butler, so as to provide the advantage of being able to protect privacy against unauthorized use of said drilling machine (35).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A), and further in view of Harshbarger (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0363454 A1).
Please be advised that Harshbarger was previously cited on the IDS filed on 3/18/2025.
Claim 19: Disclosure is not provided on the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi being “arranged to update a data base entry associated with the drill bit stored in a remote server and/or stored in a wireless device.”
However, Harshbarger teaches a control unit (150) being arranged to update a data base entry associated with drilling equipment (200A; Figure 2A) stored in a remote server (210) [paragraphs [0016-0018].
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 provided the drilling machine (35) of Clausi with the remote server (210) of Harshbarger, and to have arranged the drilling machine control unit (8) of the drilling machine (35) of Clausi to update a data base entry associated with the drill bit (1) in said remote server (210), so as to provide the advantage of being able to record and save data base entries related to operation of the drilling machine (35) and drill bit (1).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), and further in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1).
Please be advised that Crowell was previously cited on the IDS filed on 1/4/2023.
Please be advised that Deeny was previously cited on the PTO-892 mailed on 3/18/2025.
Please also be advised that the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 4/6/2020, while the effectively filed date of Wachholz is 5/16/2019. Thus, the effectively filed date of 5/16/2019 of Wachholz is prior to the effective filing date of 4/6/2020 of the claimed invention. Wachholz therefore constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 40: Figure 1 of Crowell shows a drilling machine (10), the drilling machine (10) comprising a motor [paragraph 0028] arranged to power a spindle/output shaft [paragraph 0029].
As to the spindle/output shaft, it comprises a drill bit interface (34) disposed at a distal end thereof that is arranged to hold a drill bit and to rotate the drill bit about an axle of rotation.
Next, as can be seen between Figures 1 and 2 of Crowell, the drilling machine comprises a tag reader (68).
Although the drill bit interface (34) is arranged to hold a drill bit, disclosure is not provided on an actual drill bit being held. As such, Crowell does not disclose, “a tag coil arranged around a drill bit shaft.”
Figure 2 of Wachholz though, shows therein a core drill bit (4) having a drill bit shaft (16) in which an annular groove (18) is formed. Disposed within the annular groove (18) is an annular, passive RFID [paragraph 0024], which is a tag coil. By being disposed within the annular groove of the shaft (16), the RFID tag coil is arranged around the drill bit shaft (16), specifically arranged around the inner wall of the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16).
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 provided the drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the core drill bit (4) of Wachholz, so as to provide the drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the ability to perform core drilling. Please be advised that the core drill bit (4), by way of its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34). Please further be advised that by virtue of the core drill bit (4) connecting with the drill bit interface (34), that the drilling machine (10) constitutes a “drilling machine for a core drill” as is set forth in the preamble of claim 40.
Next, with regards to the tag reader (68), Crowell does not disclose the tag reader (68) being “connected to a reader coil, wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to [the] tag coil”.
However, Deeny teaches the connection of a tag reader to a reader coil (30) (see Figure 2), wherein the reader coil (30) is arranged at a bit interface (Figure 4) and surrounding a spindle (88) to inductively couple [Deeny, paragraph 0019] to a tag coil (59) disposed at a shaft (35) of a bit and extending around a circumference of the shaft (35) of the bit. Via inductive coupling, inductive signal transfer is possible to/from an RFID in the bit (12) [Deeny, paragraph 0019].
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 connected the tag reader (68) of Crowell to the reader coil (30) of Deeny, so as to provide the advantage of being able to inductively couple to the passive RFID tag coil arranged around the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) of the modified drilling machine (10) of Crowell such that the passive RFID tag coil can be energized and tool data saved thereon can be accessed. In making this modification, the reader coil (30) of Deeny is arranged at the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell and surrounding the output shaft/spindle in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny.
Next, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Crowell, the drilling machine (10) further comprises a drilling machine control unit (70) that is connected to the tag reader (68), wherein the drilling machine control unit (70) is arranged to read data associated with the core drill bit (4) via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils, thereby obtaining information about the core drill bit (4).
Also, the reader coil (30) is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the RFID tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation. This will now be explained. Regarding the RFID tag coil, it is disposed in the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) (see Figure 2 of Wachholz). Noting this, as was stated above, the core drill bit (4), by way of its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell. In connecting within the drill bit interface (34), the drill bit shaft (16) is disposed in a location (axially offset) below a nose cap (66) of the drilling machine (10). Regarding the output shaft/ spindle, it is disposed within the confines of said nose cap (66). This is known as Crowell discloses the output shaft/spindle is not shown and the drill bit interface (34) is attached to an end portion of said output shaft/spindle [Crowell, paragraph 0029]. Thus, with respect to the axle of rotation, the output shaft/spindle is located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. Since in the modified drilling machine (10) the reader coil (30) of Deeny is arranged so as to surround the output shaft/spindle in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny, the reader coil (30) by virtue of surrounding the output shaft/spindle is also located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. Thus, the reader coil (30) is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the RFID tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, wherein the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil (30) to the RFID tag coil with the axle of rotation.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Dotan (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0075833 A1).
Please be advised that Crowell was previously cited on the IDS filed on 1/4/2023.
Please be advised that Deeny was previously cited on the PTO-892 mailed on 3/18/2025.
Please also be advised that the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 4/6/2020, while the effectively filed date of Wachholz is 5/16/2019. Thus, the effectively filed date of 5/16/2019 of Wachholz is prior to the effective filing date of 4/6/2020 of the claimed invention. Wachholz therefore constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 41: Figure 1 of Crowell shows a drilling machine (10), the drilling machine (10) comprising a motor [paragraph 0028] arranged to power a spindle/output shaft [paragraph 0029].
As to the spindle/output shaft, it comprises a drill bit interface (34) disposed at a distal end thereof that is arranged to hold a drill bit and to rotate the drill bit about an axle of rotation.
Next, as can be seen between Figures 1 and 2 of Crowell, the drilling machine comprises a tag reader (68).
Although the drill bit interface (34) is arranged to hold a drill bit, disclosure is not provided on an actual drill bit being held. As such, Crowell does not disclose, “a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft.”
Figure 2 of Wachholz though, shows therein a core drill bit (4) having a drill bit shaft (16) in which an annular groove (18) is formed. Disposed within the annular groove (18) is an annular, passive RFID [paragraph 0024], which is a tag coil. By being disposed within the annular groove of the shaft (16), the RFID tag coil is arranged around the drill bit shaft (16), specifically arranged around the inner wall of the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16).
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 provided the drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the core drill bit (4) of Wachholz, so as to provide the drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the ability to perform core drilling. Please be advised that the core drill bit (4), by way of its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34). Please further be advised that by virtue of the core drill bit (4) connecting with the drill bit interface (34), that the drilling machine (10) constitutes a “drilling machine for a core drill” as is set forth in the preamble of claim 41.
Next, with regards to the tag reader (68), Crowell does not disclose the tag reader (68) being “connected to a reader coil, wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to [the] tag coil”.
However, Deeny teaches the connection of a tag reader to a reader coil (30) (see Figure 2), wherein the reader coil (30) is arranged at a bit interface (Figure 4) and surrounding a spindle (88) to inductively couple [Deeny, paragraph 0019] to a tag coil (59) disposed at a shaft (35) of a bit and extending around a circumference of the shaft (35) of the bit. Via inductive coupling, inductive signal transfer is possible to/from an RFID in the bit (12) [Deeny, paragraph 0019].
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 connected the tag reader (68) of Crowell to the reader coil (30) of Deeny, so as to provide the advantage of being able to inductively couple to the passive RFID tag coil arranged around the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) of the modified drilling machine (10) of Crowell such that the passive RFID tag coil can be energized and tool data saved thereon can be accessed. In making this modification, the reader coil (30) of Deeny is arranged at the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell and surrounding the output shaft/spindle in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny.
Next, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Crowell, the drilling machine (10) further comprises a drilling machine control unit (70) that is connected to the tag reader (68), wherein the drilling machine control unit (70) is arranged to read data associated with the core drill bit (4) via the inductively coupled reader and tag coils, thereby obtaining information about the core drill bit (4).
Regarding the RFID tag coil, Examiner reiterates that it is disposed within the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) (see Figure 2 of Wachholz). Noting this, Examiner directs attention to Figure 2 of Wachholz. As can be seen therein, the RFID tag coil is disposed, with respect to an axial direction, above a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4). Please note that Figure 2 of Wachholz shows two first flat surfaces disposed below (in the axial direction) the annular groove (18) and the RFID tag coil located within said annular groove (18).
Crowell; however, does not provide disclosure on a “second flat surface disposed at the output shaft/spindle.”
Dotan though, shows in Figure 2 a spindle (110, 120) on which a (second) flat surface (232) is disposed, the (second) flat surface providing a mounting location for a sensor module (130). As to the sensor module (130), it senses at least one internal characteristic of the spindle (110, 120) [paragraph 0039].
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 provided the output shaft/spindle of the modified drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the second flat surface (232) and the corresponding sensor module (130) of Dotan, so as to provide the modified drilling machine (10) of Crowell with the advantage of being able to sense at least one internal characteristic of the output shaft/spindle of Crowell. In making this modification, the second flat surface (232) is formed on an outer periphery of the output shaft/spindle of Crowell in accordance with the disclosure of Dotan.
Lastly, Examiner reiterates that the RFID tag coil is disposed, with respect to the axial direction, above a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4). In this location within the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4), the RFID tag coil is further disposed, with respect to the axial direction, below the second flat surface (232) that is formed on the outer periphery of the output shaft/spindle of Crowell. In other words, the RFID tag coil is disposed axially between the first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4) and the second flat surface (232) disposed at the output shaft/spindle. This will now be explained.
As to the RFID tag coil, it is disposed in the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) (please see Figure 2 of Wachholz). Noting this, as was stated above, the core drill bit (4), by way of its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell. In connecting within the drill bit interface (34), the drill bit shaft (16) is disposed in a location (axially offset) below a nose cap (66) of the drilling machine (10). Regarding the output shaft/spindle, it is disposed within the confines of said nose cap (66). This is known as Crowell discloses the output shaft/spindle is not shown and the drill bit interface (34) is attached to an end portion of said output shaft/spindle [Crowell, paragraph 0029]. Thus, with respect to the axial direction, the output shaft/ spindle is located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. As such, the second flat surface (232) of the output shaft/spindle is located axially above the drill bit shaft (16) and the annular groove (18) thereof in which the RFID tag coil is seated.
Moreover, Figure 2 of Wachholz shows the two first flat surfaces disposed below (in the axial direction) the annular groove (18) and the RFID tag coil located within said annular groove (18).
Thus, the RFID tag coil is disposed axially between the first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4) and the second flat surface (232) disposed at the output shaft/spindle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 40, and 41 and to the combination of
Clausi (European Pub. No. EP3299101A1) in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1) have been fully considered but are moot, since this particular combination of references is not relied upon in the new ground of rejection. Please be advised that in rejecting claims 40 and 41, Clausi has not been utilized at al. Deeney; however, has again been applied as a modifying reference in rejecting each of claims 40 and 41. Please further be advised that in rejecting claim 1, that Clausi has again been utilized by Examiner as a base reference and Deeney has again been utilized as modifying reference. Having said that, in light of the amendments to claim 1 filed on 1/16/2026, claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A).
Due to the re-use of Clausi (in rejecting at least claim 1) and for Deeney (in rejected at least claims 1, 40, and 41), Examiner will do his best to address Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to claim 1 and Clausi/Deeny, Applicant argues the following:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, that the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit. In this regard, the tag coil 210 is disposed at the drill bit 110 itself, or in other words the tag coil 210 is operably coupled to the drill bit 110. The tag coil 210 also extends around the outer circumference of the shaft of the drill bit 110, and is therefore operably coupled to the drill bit 110 shaft at an exterior surface of the shaft.
Applicants respectfully submit that Clausi and Deeny, considered either alone or in combination with one another, fail to disclose that the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit. It has been established that Clausi fails to disclose "a tag coil arranged around a drill bit shaft". The Examiner cites Deeny as allegedly curing the above noted deficiency of Clausi. Applicants respectfully submit that Deeny fails to cure the above noted deficiency of Clausi. In this regard, Deeny discloses a coil 30 that the Examiner has correlated to the claimed reader coil 220, and an RFID device 59 that the Examiner has correlated to the claimed tag coil 210. Applicants submit that the RFID device 59 of Deeny does not extend around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit. As shown in FIG. 2 of Deeny annotated below, the RFID device 59 is disposed on an interior surface of a tubular base body 35 of the hub 34, and therefore does not extend around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit. (Deeny [0020]).
Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that any combination of Clausi and Deeny fails to teach or suggest that the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit. Thus, independent claim 1 is patentable over Clausi, and Deeny considered either alone or in combination with one another.
Applicant’s argument has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior combination of Clausi in view of Deeny does not teach, “a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit.” Noting this, Examiner has applied new art (Ellison et al. - U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2) as a modifying reference to Clausi for teaching the amended limitation of, “a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit.” Examiner will now explain how Ellison teaches this limitation.
Figure 1C of Ellison et al. shows an RFIDT (28a) disposed at an upper end of a shaft (10) below a mounting interface (14). Please be advised that the RFIDT (28a) comprises an integrated circuit and an antenna/tag coil (see Figure 2). Per Ellison et al., antennas of RFIDT’s according to the present invention have a diameter between ¼” to 10” [column 3, lines 53-57]. Please be advised that Ellison et al. discloses “exteriorly affixed” RFIDT’s [column 4, lines 15-17] which the RFIDT (28a) of Figure 1C is. More specifically, the RFIDT (28a) is exteriorly affixed to the shaft (10) (around the exterior circumference thereof) below the mounting interface (14) (see Figure 1C). Also, per Ellison et al., the RFIDT (28a) may be exteriorly affixed with a multilayer wrap that is shown in Figures 26 and 28, for example [column 8, lines 26-29]. Please be advised that Ellison et al. provides disclosure on energizing the RFIDT apparatus by directing energizing energy to the antenna apparatus, wherein the RFIDT apparatus being energized produces a signal [column 30, lines 59-61]. Lastly, per Ellison et al., the RFIDT (28a) can be energized and/or read and/or written to [column 21, lines 1-3].
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 RFIDT (28a) of Ellison et al., (the RFIDT (28a) including the integrated circuit, antenna, and multilayer wrap of Figures 26, 28) for the RFID (23, 24) and the tag antenna (26) of Clausi, as this is substitution of one known identification means for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the drill bit (1) being able to be identified via the RFIDT (28a) and to have data concerning usage of the drill bit (1) written to said RFIDT (28a). In making this substitution, the RFIDT (28a) is affixed by means by the multilayer wrap of Figures 26 and 28 of Ellison et al. to the exterior of the tubular shaft (12) of the drill bit (1) below the mounting interface (34) of the drill bit (1) in accordance with the disclosure of Ellison et al. As such, Clausi in view of Ellison et al. discloses an RFIDT (28a) including a tag coil/antenna disposed at the tubular shaft (12) of the drill bit (1) and extending around an exterior circumference of said shaft (12) of the drill bit (1).
While the amended limitation of, “a tag coil disposed at a shaft of the drill bit and extending around an exterior circumference of the shaft of the drill bit,” overcame the previously applied combination of Clausi in view of Deeny, this limitation does not define over the prior art as a whole. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausi (European Pub. No. EP 3299101 A1) in view of Ellison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,159,654 B2), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Tsujino (U.S. Patent No. 5,257,199 A).
With respect to claim 40 and Clausi/Deeny, Applicant argues the following:
Applicants hereby traverse the rejection of independent claim 40. Independent claim 40 recites, inter alia, that the reader coil is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, and that the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil to the tag coil coaxial with the axle of rotation. In this regard, the reader coil 220 and the tag coil 210 are distanced from one another along the axle of rotation 101 such that the reader coil 220 and the tag coil 210 are not disposed in a same horizontal plane through the shaft of the drill bit 110, and the positions of the reader coil 220 and the tag coil 210 do not overlap with one another.
The Examiner argues, on Page 6 of the Final Office Action, that "as can be seen in Figure 2 of Deeny the distal end of the tag coil (59) is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the distal end of the tag coil (59) is disposed at a second axial position along said axle of rotation. Due to this offset between the respective distal end of each of the reader coil (30) and the tag coil (59), the first and second axial positions are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil (30) to the tag coil (59) coaxial with the axle of rotation". Applicants respectfully disagree with this assertion and submit that it is unreasonable to assume that one of skill in the art would interpret Deeny in this manner. The axial position of an object cannot be distilled down to a single point, but rather is conventionally understood as the entirety of the axial space that is taken up. The tag 59 and coil 30 allegedly disclosed by Deeny are seen to be almost completely overlapping positionally, in FIG. 2, above. The tag is not separated at all from the coil, while a small portion of the coil extends beyond the tag. One of ordinary skill in the art would not read Deeny and come to the understanding that the tag and coil are axially distanced from one another. On the other hand, it is very clear upon looking at, say, FIGS. 2 and 3A of the claimed invention that the tag coil and the reader coil are completely separate, positionally, from one another, and that every point on the tag coil is separate, axially, from every point on the reader coil. It would be unreasonable and nonsensical to distill the position of an entire object, including all the axial space that it takes up, to a single point, as the Examiner is doing in the correlation of the "distal end" of the tag coil and the "distal end" of the reader coil to the tag coil and reader coil of the claimed invention, as is done on Page 6 of the Final Office Action. The axial position of each coil is the axial position of each coil, not the axial position of the distal end of each coil. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that any combination of Clausi and Deeny fails to teach or suggest that the reader coil is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, and that the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil to the tag coil coaxial with the axle of rotation. Thus, independent claim 40 is patentable over Clausi, and Deeny considered either alone or in combination with one another.
Applicant’s argument has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior combination of Clausi in view of Deeny does not teach, “wherein the reader coil is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, and wherein the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil to the tag coil coaxial with the axle of rotation.” Noting this, Examiner has applied a new art combination in rejecting claim 40, noting that claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), and further in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1).
In rejecting claim 40, please be advised that Crowell is the base reference, and it is modified by both Wachholz and Deeny. While Deeney is relied upon for teaching of a “reader coil, wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil,” Wachholz is relied upon for teaching of, “a tag coil arranged around a drill bit shaft.” As such, the present combination is not relying on just Deeney (like in the previous office action) for teaching both the claimed tag coil and the claimed reader coil. Thus, Applicant’s arguments concerning such are moot.
Noting the above, in the combination of Crowell/Wachholz/Deeny, the reader coil (30) is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the RFID tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation. This will now be explained.
As to the RFID tag coil, it is disposed in the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) (see Figure 2 of Wachholz). Noting this, as was stated above in the rejection of claim 40, the core drill bit (4), via its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell. In connecting within the drill bit interface (34), the drill bit shaft (16) is disposed in a location (axially offset) below a nose cap (66) of the drilling machine (10). Regarding the output shaft/spindle, it is disposed within the confines of said nose cap (66). This is known as Crowell discloses the output shaft/spindle is not shown and the drill bit interface (34) is attached to an end portion of said output shaft/spindle [Crowell, paragraph 0029]. Thus, with respect to the axle of rotation, the output shaft/spindle is located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. As in the modified drilling machine (10) the reader coil (30) of Deeny is arranged so as to surround the output shaft/spindle in accordance with the disclosure of Deeny, the reader coil (30) by virtue of surrounding the output shaft/spindle is also located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. Thus, the reader coil (30) is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the RFID tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, wherein the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil (30) to the RFID tag coil with the axle of rotation.
While the limitation of, “wherein the reader coil is disposed at a first axial position along the axle of rotation and the tag coil is disposed at a second axial position along the axle of rotation, and wherein the first axial position and the second axial position are separated from each other by a first distance, the first distance extending from the reader coil to the tag coil coaxial with the axle of rotation” defines over the previously applied combination of Clausi in view of Deeny, this limitation does not define over the prior art as a whole. As such, claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), and further in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1).
With respect to claim 41 and Clausi/Deeny, Applicant argues the following:
Applicants hereby traverse the rejection of independent claim 41. Independent claim 41 recites, inter alia, that the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft axially between a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit and a second flat surface disposed at the spindle. In this regard, as seen above in FIG. 2 from the present application, the tag coil is disposed between a first flat surface 240 at the drill bit 110 and a second flat surface 250 on the spindle. (See FIG. 2 and page 11, lines 6-9 of the present application).
On pages 8-11 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner claims that Deeny discloses the abovementioned elements required by independent claim 41. Applicants respectfully disagree. First, the Examiner claims that Deeny teaches "wherein the reader coil is arranged at a drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle". The "reader coil" 30 disclosed by Deeny is most definitely not disclosed at a "drill bit interface". According to claim 41, as well as the claimed invention specification and knowledge that one skilled in the art would possess, a drill bit interface would refer to the connection point between the shaft of the drill bit and the spindle, such that the drill bit may be retained by the drilling machine and be rotated around an axle of rotation. It would appear, based on the Examiner's interpretation that the drill bit interface should be where the drive shaft 16, which is attached to the motor 15, connects to the shaft of the drill bit. As described by Deeny in [0033], "the rotational movement of output shaft 16 is transferred to the cutting element 33", which should correlate to the rotation of the spindle, in the claimed invention, transferring rotational torque to the shaft of the drill bit. However, the "reader coil" disclosed by Deeny is not arranged at the assumed drill bit interface, but rather disposed, "in collet 26" (Deeny [0019]). Collet 26 is a part of the coupling assembly 25 provided on handpiece 11, of which accessory 12 is removably attachable from. The coil 30 is not disposed at any drill bit interface, but seemingly disposed at a random point in the middle of the hub 34, according to FIGS. 2 and 4 of Deeny.
Next, the Examiner claims that Deeny teaches wherein a tag coil is disposed around a drill bit shaft axially. The RFID tag coil 59 disclosed by Deeny is not disposed around a drill bit shaft. The Examiner further correlates the drill bit shaft of the claimed invention to the tubular base body 35 which defines hub 34 of Deeny. The hub of Deeny is further said in [0020] to be a part of housing element 32. The shaft of the "drill bit" in this matter is simply not equivalent to a portion of the housing element that contains the cutting element 33. Additionally, the alleged shaft and spindle portions of Deeny are formed as part of the same "accessory" 12, seen in FIG. 4 not separate entities wherein the spindle is responsible for retaining the drill bit and rotating it.
Finally, Deeny fails to teach, as the Examiner claims, that the tag coil is disposed between a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit and a second flat surface disposed at the spindle. In this case, the Examiner has selected two arbitrary surfaces seen in FIG. 2 of Deeny and identified these as the flat surfaces 240 and 250 of claim 41, which refers to portions on the drill bit and spindle, respectively, that may engage with spanners or wrenches in order to tighten the drill bit onto the spindle. Moreover, the first flat surface identified by the Examiner is not even disposed at the drill bit of Deeny, which Applicants submit is located at the distal end of the cutting accessory, which is defined by a cutting head.
Overall, there is much confusion and inappropriate conflation regarding multiple pieces of information presented by Deeny and/or Clausi which is subsequently being correlated to portions of the Applicants' invention in a manner that is incorrect. One of skill in the art would never feasibly be motivated to, let alone be able to, combine Clausi and Deeny in any way that would result in the claimed invention, at the very least, due to the extreme structural differences discussed above, and moreover due to the fact that Deeny is directed to an entirely different field of study than the claimed invention.
Applicants respectfully submit that any combination of Clausi and Deeny fails to teach or suggest that the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft axially between a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit and a second flat surface disposed at the spindle. Thus, independent claim 41 is patentable over Clausi, and Deeny considered either alone or in combination with one another.
Applicant’s argument has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior combination of Clausi in view of Deeny does not teach, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft axially between a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit and a second flat surface disposed at the spindle.” Noting this, Examiner has applied a new art combination in rejecting claim 41, noting that claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Dotan (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0075833 A1).
In rejecting claim 41, please be advised that Crowell is the base reference, and it is modified by each of Wachholz, Deeny, and Dotan. While Deeney is relied upon for teaching of a “reader coil, wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil,” Wachholz is relied upon for teaching, “a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft” and for teaching “a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit,” while Dotan is relied upon for teaching, “a second flat surface disposed at the spindle.”
As such, the present combination is not relying on just Deeney (like in the previous office action) for teaching both the claimed tag coil and the claimed reader coil. Thus, Applicant’s arguments concerning such are moot. That said, regarding Applicant’s argument that in Deeny that, “The ‘reader coil’ 30 disclosed by Deeny is most definitely not disclosed at a ‘drill bit interface’”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant in claim 41 set forth therein the claimed “drill bit interface as being “arranged to hold a bit and to rotate the drill bit.” As can seen in Figures 2 and 4 of Deeney, the reader coil (30) is disposed “at” (as best understood, noting the rejection of claim 41 under each of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) the collet (26)/drill bit interface which is arranged to hold a bit and to rotate the bit once set in rotation. Thus, Applicant’s argument that the Deeny does not teach, “the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface” is not found to be persuasive.
Noting the above, in the combination of Crowell/Wachholz/Deeny/Dotan, the RFID tag coil is disposed axially between the first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4) and the second flat surface (232) disposed at the output shaft/spindle. This will now be explained.
As was explained above in the rejection of claim 41, the RFID tag coil of the modified drilling machine (10) of Crowell is disposed in the annular groove (18) of the drill bit shaft (16) of the core drill bit (4) (please see Figure 2 of Wachholz). Noting this, the core drill bit (4), via its drill bit shaft (16), connects to the drill bit interface (34) of Crowell. In connecting within the drill bit interface (34), the drill bit shaft (16) is disposed in a location (axially offset) below a nose cap (66) of the drilling machine (10). Regarding the output shaft/spindle, it is disposed within the confines of said nose cap (66). This is known as Crowell discloses the output shaft/spindle is not shown and the drill bit interface (34) is attached to an end portion of said output shaft/spindle [Crowell, paragraph 0029]. Thus, with respect to the axial direction, the output shaft/spindle is located above the location within the drill bit interface (34) that the drill bit shaft (16) is received. As such, the second flat surface (232) of the output shaft/spindle is located axially above the drill bit shaft (16) and the annular groove (18) thereof in which the RFID tag coil is seated. Moreover, Figure 2 of Wachholz shows the two first flat surfaces disposed below (in the axial direction) the annular groove (18) and the RFID tag coil located within said annular groove (18). Thus, the RFID tag coil is disposed axially between the first flat surface disposed at the drill bit (4) and the second flat surface (232) disposed at the output shaft/spindle.
While the limitation of, “wherein the reader coil is arranged at the drill bit interface and surrounding the spindle to inductively couple to a tag coil disposed around a drill bit shaft axially between a first flat surface disposed at the drill bit and a second flat surface disposed at the spindle” defines over the previously applied combination of Clausi in view of Deeny, this limitation does not define over the prior art as a whole. As such, claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowell (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2020/002368 A1) in view of in view of Wachholz (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0361008 A1), in view of Deeny (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0256174 A1), and further in view of Dotan (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0075833 A1).
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 15 and 16, Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 15 and 16 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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 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