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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of November 19, 2025.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 23 and 25 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittwood (US 3,028,770) in view of Reichenberger et al. (US 2017/0209943, Reich) and Gilmore (US 2022/0153856).
Regarding claim 12: Pittwood discloses a method for releasing a screw connection 17/31 between a drilling device Fig 1 and a drill bit 12 – 1:10-15, 1:20-67, the method comprising:
a) providing a drilling device having a drill bit, the drill bit, during operation of the drilling device 1:20-67, being fastened to the drilling device via the screw connection, and having a drive shaft 30, torque spikes changing between forward rotation and reverse rotation capable of being applied to the drive shaft 1:20-67,
wherein, during operation of the drilling device, the drill bit is driven in a drilling direction via the drive shaft of the drilling device 1:20-48,
b) operating the drilling device in a second direction of rotation, wherein the second direction of rotation is opposite to the drilling direction 1:49-67, and
c) releasing the screw connection between a drilling device and the drill bit.
Pittwood discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for the drilling device being a core drilling device and the operating in the second direction of rotation including a plurality of the torque spikes. Pittwood discloses that the tool therein is a boring tool but fails to disclose what kind of boring.
Reich discloses a core drilling device 1 that is used with a drill bit 2 – Fig 1. The drill bit is connected to the core drilling device by a threaded or screw connection [0003].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the method of Pittwood to connect a drill bit to a core drilling device, like that of Reich, in order to have been able to easily and securely couple the core drilling device to the drill bit in a way that allowed for continuous work operations 2: 1-5 of Pittwood.
Pittwood, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for the operating in the second direction of rotation including a plurality of the torque spikes.
Gilmore discloses a method for driving a screw into a substrate by driving a power tool in a first direction and removing a screw from the substrate by driving the power tool in a second, opposite direction using circuitry that is designed/programmed to “ratchet” the motor output in torque pulses [0054]-[0061]. In either direction, the torque pulses or spikes are used to drive or remove the screw without risking the over-application of power [0071] and better control [0058].
It is recognized that Gilmore is directed to the driving and removal of a screw, Gilmore is considered to be analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Gilmore uses torque spikes to control the threading or unthreading of an element, i.e. the screw, in a way that is substantially similar to the threading or unthreading of the drill bit of the instant application. Applicant has provided no specific reason for the use of torque spikes beyond threading or unthreading the drill bit.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Pittwood so that the operation of the drilling device in both the first direction and the second direction involved the use of a plurality of torque spikes, as suggested by Gilmore, in order to have reduced the risk of the over-application of power to the drill bit [0071] and better control of the application of power to the drill bit [0058].
Regarding claim 13: Wherein the screw connection between the core drilling device and the drill bit is released without a tool 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 14: Wherein the torque spikes release the screw connection between the core drilling device and the drill bit when the drive shaft of the core drilling device is driven in the second direction of rotation 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 15: Pittwood, as modified, discloses a core drilling device configured to carry out the above described method.
Regarding claim 16: Wherein the torque spikes are designed to release the screw connection between the core drilling device and the drill bit when the drive shaft of the core drilling device is driven in the second direction of rotation 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 17: The core drilling device of Pittwood, as modified, further comprising comprises a motor not specifically shown but motor is used – 7:65-8:2 of Pittwood for driving the drive shaft, wherein the motor is configured to generate the torque spikes, a strength of the torque spikes being sufficient to effect the releasing of the screw connection between the core drilling device and the drill bit 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 19: Wherein the core drilling device is a diamond core drilling device, and the drill bit is a diamond drill bit [0002], [0026] of Reich.
Regarding claim 20: Wherein reversal of the direction of rotation of a drive shaft of the core drilling device in step b) is combined with application of the torque spikes to the drive shaft to effect the releasing of the screw connection in step c) 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 21: Wherein the drive shaft of the core drilling device is subjected to the torque spikes during operation of the core drilling device in the second direction of rotation to effect the releasing of the screw connection 1:49-67 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 23: Wherein, prior to the operating of the core drilling device in the second direction of rotation, the drill bit is fixed such that the drill bit does not corotate when the drive shaft rotates fixed by secure attachment to housing 44 – Fig 1 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 24: Wherein the drilling direction is clockwise Fig 2, 3 of Pittwood and the second direction of rotation is counterclockwise Fig 4 of Pittwood.
Regarding claim 25: Wherein the method further includes a step of operating the core drilling device to cut a substrate W of Reich, the step of operating the core drilling device to cut a substrate occurring prior to the operating of the core drilling device in the second direction of rotation [0026] of Reich – as rotation in the second direction is intended for removal of the core bit, the substrate would have to be cut prior to removal of the tool.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittwood in view of Reich as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (US 2016/0030622, Carlson), as evidenced by “Brushless Motors”.
Pittwood discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the motor of the core drilling device being a brushless motor.
Carlson discloses a core drilling device that uses a brushless motor [0027].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Pittwood so that the motor was a brushless motor, as taught by Carlson, in order to have a motor that was smaller, lighter, more efficient, and had a longer life see “Brushless Motors”.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittwood in view of Reich as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zheng (CN 105965052).
Pittwood discloses that method uses a motor control unit MC – 7:65-8:2 to automatically control the drilling device and the connection thereof however fails to disclose that the method is executable by a computer program.
Zheng discloses a drilling device that is controlled by a PLC and the computer program thereon 3rd paragraph on page 2 of provided translation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Pittwood to use a computer program to automatically control the drilling device, as taught by Zheng, in order to have removed the need for a human operator 1st paragraph on page 2 of the provided translation.
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 JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
12/11/2025