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 3-8 and 14-16 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 3 recites the limitation “approximately 1 oscillation per revolution and approximately 2 oscillations per revolution” in lines 2-3. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 1 and 2 oscillations “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “approximately 1.5 oscillations per revolution” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 1.5 oscillations “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “approximately 0.004 inch” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 0.004 inch “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “approximately 27 Hertz” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 27 Hertz “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “approximately 1 oscillation per revolution and approximately 2 oscillations per revolution” in lines 2-3. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 1 and 2 oscillations “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “approximately 1.5 oscillations per revolution” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 1.5 oscillations “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “approximately 0.004 inch” in line 2 and “approximately 27 Hertz” in line 4. It is unclear in light of the specification what variation from 0.004 inch and from 27 Hertz “approximately” is intended to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150003928 A1 to Laporte.
Regarding claim 1, Laporte discloses an automated drilling method (Abstract) comprising steps of: drilling a workpiece (Figs 5-6); advancing along a feed axis X according to a numerically controlled axial feed rate (advance speed not illustrated, [0057]); and inducing a numerically controlled oscillating motion superimposed over the numerically controlled axial feed rate ([0075-0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1, wherein: the step of advancing comprises actuating a tool drive 2 to continuously extend a power drill along the feed axis X ([0081]); and the step of inducing comprises actuating the tool drive 2 to cyclically retract and extend the power drill along the feed axis X ([0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Laporte discloses an automated drilling system (Abstract) comprising: a power drill 200; a tool drive coupled to the power drill and configured to move the power drill along a feed axis X ([0119]); and a controller programmed with instructions ([0139]) that cause the controller to: advance the power drill along the feed axis X according to a numerically controlled axial feed rate (advance speed not illustrated, [0057]); and induce a numerically controlled oscillating motion superimposed over the numerically controlled axial feed rate ([0075-0076]).
Regarding claim 17, Laporte discloses the automated drilling system of claim 13, wherein the instructions cause the controller to cyclically retract and extend the power drill along the feed axis while continuously extending the power drill along the feed axis ([0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Laporte discloses a controller for an automated drilling system, the controller programmed with instructions that, when executed by the controller, causes the controller to perform operations (the numerically controlled drilling machine must contain a controller to perform the functions of the drilling machine) comprising: advancing along a feed axis X according to a numerically controlled axial feed rate (advance speed not illustrated, [0057]); and inducing a numerically controlled oscillating motion superimposed over the numerically controlled axial feed rate ([0075-0076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte.
Regarding claims 3-4, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises an oscillation rate of between approximately 1 oscillation per revolution and approximately 2 oscillations per revolution. Laporte also does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises the oscillation rate of approximately 1.5 oscillation per revolution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the oscillation rate to 1.5 oscillations per revolution in order to create the desired chip creation for the material being drilled, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 14-15, Laporte discloses the automated frilling system of claim 13. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises an oscillation rate of between approximately 1 oscillation per revolution and approximately 2 oscillations per revolution. Laporte also does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises the oscillation rate of approximately 1.5 oscillation per revolution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the oscillation rate to 1.5 oscillations per revolution in order to create the desired chip creation for the material being drilled, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of US 20170136552 A1 to Fairchild et al. (hereinafter ‘Fairchild’).
Regarding claims 5-6, Laporte as previously modified discloses the automated drilling method of claim 3. Laporte does not explicitly disclose increasing the oscillation rate to decrease a size of a debris chip cut during the drilling. Laporte also does not disclose decreasing the oscillation rate to decrease a size of a debris chip cut during the drilling.
However, Fairchild teaches changing the oscillation rate in order to change the thickness of the debris chip ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte as previously modified to incorporate the sensor and feedback mechanism of Fairchild into the drilling method in order to enable further responsiveness and control over the drilling method (Fairchild, [0037]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20210237172 A1 to Chan et al. (hereinafter ‘Chan’).
Regarding claim 7, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises an amplitude of approximately 0.004 inch.
However, Chan teaches an amplitude 0.06-0.16mm (0.0024-0.0063 inches) ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to incorporate the oscillation amplitude of Chan in order to properly drill the chosen workpiece (Chan, [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises a frequency of approximately 27 Hertz.
However, Chan teaches an oscillating frequency of 25-80 Hz ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to incorporate the oscillation frequency of Chan in order to properly drill the chosen workpiece (Chan, [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Laporte as previously modified teaches the automated drilling system of claim 15. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises an amplitude of approximately 0.004 inch; and the numerically controlled oscillating motion comprises a frequency of approximately 27 Hertz.
However, Chan teaches an amplitude 0.06-0.16mm (0.0024-0.0063 inches) ([0029]) and an oscillating frequency of 25-80 Hz ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to incorporate the oscillation frequency of Chan in order to properly drill the chosen workpiece (Chan, [0029]).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20220040770 A1 to Beer et al. (hereinafter ‘Beer).
Regarding claims 9-10, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose dispensing a lubricant to a cutting surface of a cutting tool while at least a portion of the cutting tool is located within a hole being drilled in the workpiece. Laporte also does not explicitly disclose dispensing the lubricant comprises internally routing the lubricant to the cutting surface of the cutting tool.
However, Beer teaches dispensing a lubricant to a cutting surface of a cutting tool ([0089]) while at least a portion of the cutting tool is located within a hole being drilled in the workpiece ([0105]). Beer also teaches dispensing the lubricant comprises internally routing the lubricant to the cutting surface of the cutting tool ([0078], Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to incorporate a cooling drill as taught by Beer in order to reduce frictional heat produced between the drilling tool and the bore (Beer, [0105]).
Regarding claim 18, Laporte discloses the automated drilling system of claim 13. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the power drill is configured to internally route a lubricant to a cutting surface of the cutting tool.
However, Beer teaches the power drill is configured to internally route a lubricant to a cutting surface of the cutting tool ([0078], Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to incorporate a cooling drill as taught by Beer in order to reduce frictional heat produced between the drilling tool and the bore (Beer, [0105]).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20190375068 A1 to Babcock.
Regarding claim 11, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose inducing the numerically controlled oscillating motion is selectively activated and deactivated based on a material composition of the workpiece.
However, Babcock teaches inducing the numerically controlled oscillating motion is selectively activated and deactivated based on a material composition of the workpiece ([0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Laporte discloses the automated drilling system of claim 13. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the instructions further cause the controller to selectively activate and deactivate the numerically controlled oscillating motion based on a material composition of a workpiece.
However, Babcock teaches the instructions further cause the controller to selectively activate and deactivate the numerically controlled oscillating motion based on a material composition of a workpiece ([0032]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 109108317 A to Jiao et al. (hereinafter ‘Jiao’).
Regarding claim 12, Laporte discloses the automated drilling method of claim 1. Laporte does not explicitly disclose the workpiece comprises a stack of a composite material and a metallic material; and inducing the numerically controlled oscillating motion is performed while drilling the metallic material.
However, Jiao teaches a stack of a composite material and a metallic material ([0011]); and inducing the numerically controlled oscillating motion is performed while drilling the metallic material ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laporte to utilize the vibration drilling differently across different materials as taught by Jiao in order to address the characteristics of different laminated materials (Jiao, [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights