DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 12-16 and 18-20 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the actuator" and “the rod of the actuator” in Lines 14 and 15 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Additionally, claim 18 is dependent on now-cancelled claim 17, rendering claims 18 and 19 indefinite.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126, hereinafter ‘Hsu’) in view of Giese (US 20190070674).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a gantry drill comprising a floor-mounted track 11 extending in a longitudinal direction. A carriage 2 is combined to the floor-mounted track for movement along the track in the longitudinal direction. A pair of lateral tracks 23 parallel to each other and aligned on a z-axis with each other are combined to the carriage and extend above and perpendicular to the floor-mounted track. A platform 3 is combined to the pair of lateral tracks for lateral movement along the pair of lateral tracks. A vertical frame 4 is combined to the platform and positioned between the pair of lateral tracks and configured for movement with respect to the platform along a z-axis. Hsu does not explicitly disclose the vertical frame being configured to receive a commercial off the shelf drill to attach fasteners in a workpiece in the z-axis.
Giese discloses a similar drilling apparatus which teaches the concept of a vertical frame 150/170/180 being configured to receive a commercial off the shelf drill capable of drilling and attaching fasteners in a workpiece in the z-axis (Paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the gantry drill of Hsu to be able to accept a commercial off the shelf drill to allow for a more economical replacement and to enable a user to attach fasteners in addition to drilling holes if desired, as taught by Giese.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu further discloses a linear track 42 combined to the platform and positioned above and perpendicular to the pair of lateral tracks, wherein the vertical frame is combined to the linear track via slide rails 41 for movement along the linear track and between the pair of lateral tracks.
Claims 2, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126) in view of Giese (US 20190070674) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Farley (WO 8809236).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu is largely silent as to the structure of the floor-mounted track 11, and Giese does not provide any additional structure.
Farley discloses a similar gantry drill, wherein a floor-mounted track comprises a guide 21 and an angle channel 14/15. The carriage 4 comprises a roller 22 and a locking roller 16. The roller of the carriage is positioned on the guide and the locking roller of the carriage is positioned in the angle channel so that the roller of the carriage moves along the guide and the locking roller prevents the carriage from lifting with respect to the floor-mounted track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 1 by simply substituting the undisclosed structure of the floor-mounted track with the guide and angle channel and corresponding roller and locking roller taught by Farley, in order to provide a more stable attachment to the floor-mounted track and ensure accurate machining and movement. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
Regarding claim 6, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed actuator.
Farley discloses a similar gantry drill with an actuator 46 combined to the vertical frame with a rod 45 movable with respect to the actuator and a vertical sub-frame 43 combined to the rod of the actuator for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the clamping foot/actuator taught by Farley to the apparatus of claim 4 in order to clamp the workpiece even tighter at the point of machining, increasing the accuracy of the final workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed vertical sub-frame.
Farley discloses the vertical frame comprising a vertical sub-frame 43 configured for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame. The vertical sub-frame comprises a bottom plate with a hole 44 for receiving a chuck 39 of the drill to hold a rotational axis of the drill on the z-axis (see e.g. Figs. 3 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the clamping foot/vertical sub-frame taught by Farley to the apparatus of claim 1 in order to clamp the workpiece even tighter at the point of machining, increasing the accuracy of the final workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, Hsu does not disclose the claimed lock.
Giese discloses a lock 180 positioned above the bottom plate and positioned across a handle of the commercial drill to lock the drill from movement in the z-axis (see e.g. Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the lock of Giese into the modified assembly of claim 9 in order to securely mount the drill in position.
Regarding claim 11, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed brake.
Farley discloses a brake cylinder 46 combined to the platform for selective engagement (by way of the rest of the apparatus) with the pair of lateral tracks to lock the platform from movement in a lateral direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 1 by incorporating the brake cylinder taught by Farley to ensure the tool does not move during operation, resulting in higher accuracy of a final workpiece.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126) in view of Giese (US 20190070674) and Farley (WO 8809236) as applied to claims 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Russell et al. (US 20210245317, hereinafter ‘Russell’).
Regarding claim 5, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed handle, Farley discloses a CNC controlled gantry drill, but also discloses that the drill may be controlled manually if desired (Page 11, Lines 26-28). However, Farley also does not disclose the claimed handle.
Russell discloses a handle 22 combined to an extending member 21 which extends outward and downward from a machining member 7 for manual manipulation of the machining member (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the handle of Russell to the vertical frame of the modified apparatus of claim 4, extending outward from the pair of lateral tracks and downward beneath the pair of lateral tracks for manual manipulation of the vertical frame along the pair of lateral tracks and along the linear track for faster manipulation of the machining device and a more flexible machining method not requiring pre-programming.
Regarding claim 7, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed handle, Farley discloses a CNC controlled gantry drill, but also discloses that the drill may be controlled manually if desired (Page 11, Lines 26-28). However, Farley also does not disclose the claimed handle.
Russell discloses a handle 22 positioned apart from the machining device 8 combined to an extending member 21 which extends outward and downward from a machining member 7 for manual manipulation of the machining member (Paragraph [0039]). A trigger 16 is positioned near the handle and combined to initiate machining operations (Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the handle and trigger of Russell to the vertical frame of the modified apparatus of claim 6, extending outward from the pair of lateral tracks and downward beneath the pair of lateral tracks for manual manipulation of the vertical frame along the pair of lateral tracks and along the linear track for faster manipulation of the machining device and a more flexible machining method not requiring pre-programming. The trigger would initiate movement of the rod of the actuator to move the vertical sub-frame along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame (i.e. initiate clamping, which is the start of the machining operation).
Regarding claim 8, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed lock. Farley discloses locking means to lock movement of the platform with respect to the lateral track (Pages 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a lock-button near the handle to lock movement of the platform with respect to the pair of lateral tracks, to allow for quick locking of the drill in place.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126) in view of Giese (US 20190070674) and Farley (WO 8809236) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Johnston (US 20210284360).
Regarding claim 3, none of Hsu, Giese or Farley disclose the carriage comprising a frame with a seat attached thereto.
Johnston discloses a similar gantry system comprising a frame 310 with a seat 300 attached to the frame for movement with the carriage of the system along a track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a frame/seat as taught by Johnston to the modified apparatus of claim 2 in order to provide a seat for the operator to prevent fatigue during long machining operations.
Claims 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126) in view of Giese (US 20190070674) and Farley (WO 8809236) and Russell et al. (US 20210245317).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu discloses a gantry drill for movement on a floor-mounted track. A carriage 2 is combined to the floor-mounted track for movement along the track in a longitudinal direction. A lateral track 23 is combined to the carriage and extends above and perpendicular to the floor-mounted track. A platform 3 is combined to the lateral track for lateral movement along the lateral track. A vertical frame 4 is combined to the platform and configured for movement with respect to the platform along a z-axis. Hsu does not explicitly disclose the vertical frame being configured to receive a commercial off the shelf drill to attach fasteners in a workpiece in the z-axis, or the claimed handle and related actuator/vertical sub-frame structure.
Giese discloses a similar drilling apparatus which teaches the concept of a vertical frame 150/170/180 being configured to receive a commercial off the shelf drill capable of drilling and attaching fasteners in a workpiece in the z-axis (Paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the gantry drill of Hsu to be able to accept a commercial off the shelf drill to allow for a more economical replacement and to enable a user to attach fasteners in addition to drilling holes if desired, as taught by Giese.
Farley discloses a similar gantry drill with an actuator 46 combined to the vertical frame with a rod 45 movable with respect to the actuator and a vertical sub-frame 43 combined to the rod of the actuator for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame. The vertical frame further comprises a vertical sub-frame 43 configured for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame. The vertical sub-frame comprises a bottom plate with a hole 44 for receiving a chuck 39 of the drill to hold a rotational axis of the drill on the z-axis (see e.g. Figs. 3 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the clamping foot/actuator taught by Farley to the apparatus of Hsu and Giese in order to clamp the workpiece even tighter at the point of machining, increasing the accuracy of the final workpiece.
Russell discloses a handle 22 combined to an extending member 21 which extends outward and downward from a machining member 7 for manual manipulation of the machining member (Paragraph [0039]). A trigger 16 is positioned near the handle and combined to initiate machining operations (Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the handle and trigger of Russell to the vertical frame of the modified apparatus of Hsu, Giese and Farley, extending outward from the pair of lateral tracks and downward beneath the pair of lateral tracks for manual manipulation of the vertical frame along the pair of lateral tracks and along the linear track for faster manipulation of the machining device and a more flexible machining method not requiring pre-programming. The trigger would initiate movement of the rod of the actuator to move the vertical sub-frame along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame (i.e. initiate clamping, which is the start of the machining operation).
Regarding claim 13, Hsu is largely silent as to the structure of the floor-mounted track 11 and corresponding structure of the carriage, and Giese does not provide any additional structure.
Farley discloses a similar gantry drill, wherein a floor-mounted track comprises a guide 21 and an angle channel 14/15. The carriage 4 comprises a roller 22 and a locking roller 16. The roller of the carriage is positioned on the guide and the locking roller of the carriage is positioned in the angle channel so that the roller of the carriage moves along the guide and the locking roller prevents the carriage from lifting with respect to the floor-mounted track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 12 by simply substituting the undisclosed structure of the floor-mounted track with the guide and angle channel and corresponding roller and locking roller taught by Farley, in order to provide a more stable attachment to the floor-mounted track and ensure accurate machining and movement. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
Regarding claim 18, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed lock. Farley discloses locking means to lock movement of the platform with respect to the lateral track (Pages 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a lock-button near the handle to lock movement of the platform with respect to the pair of lateral tracks, to allow for quick locking of the drill in place.
Regarding claim 19, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed brake.
Farley discloses a brake cylinder 46 combined to the platform for selective engagement (by way of the rest of the apparatus) with the pair of lateral tracks to lock the platform from movement in a lateral direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 18 by incorporating the brake cylinder taught by Farley to ensure the tool does not move during operation, resulting in higher accuracy of a final workpiece.
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20040090126) in view of Giese (US 20190070674) and Farley (WO 8809236) and Russell et al. (US 20210245317) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Johnston (US 20210284360).
Regarding claim 14, none of Hsu, Giese, Farley or Russell disclose the carriage comprising a frame with a seat attached thereto.
Johnston discloses a similar gantry system comprising a frame 310 with a seat 300 attached to the frame for movement with the carriage of the system along a track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a frame/seat as taught by Johnston to the modified apparatus of claim 13 in order to provide a seat for the operator to prevent fatigue during long machining operations.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu further discloses a linear track 42 combined to the platform and positioned above and perpendicular to the pair of lateral tracks, wherein the vertical frame is combined to the linear track via slide rails 41 for movement along the linear track and between the pair of lateral tracks.
Regarding claim 16, neither Hsu nor Giese disclose the claimed actuator.
Farley discloses a similar gantry drill with an actuator 46 combined to the vertical frame with a rod 45 movable with respect to the actuator and a vertical sub-frame 43 combined to the rod of the actuator for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame. The vertical frame further comprises a vertical sub-frame 43 configured for movement along the z-axis with respect to the vertical frame. The vertical sub-frame comprises a bottom plate with a hole 44 for receiving a chuck 39 of the drill to hold a rotational axis of the drill on the z-axis (see e.g. Figs. 3 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the clamping foot/actuator taught by Farley to the apparatus of claim 15 in order to clamp the workpiece even tighter at the point of machining, increasing the accuracy of the final workpiece.
Regarding claim 20, none of Hsu, Giese or Farley disclose the claimed handle attachment means.
Russell discloses an angle plate (bottom plate of drill 210 where handle 10 attaches (see e.g. Fig. 5A) for attaching the handle 10 thereto. The angle plate is combined to a first plate (one half of handle 10) and a second plate (other half of handle 10) having holes oriented in the z-axis, wherein the first plate can be rotated with respect to the second plate during assembly and a pin (fastener 17) combines the first and second plates to fix the orientation of the two.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of claim 16 by incorporating the angle/first/second plate assembly taught by Russell in order to securely attach the handle to the assembly in the desired orientation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722