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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 19 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that because all of the species depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, it would be appropriate to examine all of the species/claims. This is not found persuasive because the species require different fields of search including different text search strategies and text search queries. Examination burden comes from developing and analyzing synonyms for each different species. Examination burden would also increase exponentially in subsequent actions as the subject matter further diverges due to increasing specificity of the separately claimed elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 19 November 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the poor quality of the drawings, which makes it difficult to interpret Applicant’s invention. 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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, line 1, the phrase “battery pack disposed” should be changed to “battery pack is disposed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morton (US 2017/0232605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morton discloses a drill press (embodiment of figure 6), comprising: a main housing PT; a drill unit TE supported by the main housing for relative movement therewith; and a base 10 coupled to the main housing, the base includes a magnet assembly 12 to create a magnetic field for magnetically latching the base to a workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Morton discloses wherein the magnet assembly 12 is rotatably attached to the base 10 (using levers 74 to loosen the shafts of guide bolts 66 and guide bolts 68, and moving the shafts in guide slots 72 between a first position and a second position, see paragraphs [0085]-[0086] and [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, Morton discloses wherein the magnet assembly 12 comprises a shaft (of guide bolts 66 and guide pins 68) and at least one permanent magnet disposed on the shaft (permanent magnets disposed in housing 40, see paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Morton discloses wherein the shaft is rotatable between a first position where the base 10 would not magnetically engage the workpiece and a second position where the base would engage the workpiece (see paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Morton discloses wherein the shaft is connected to a lever assembly 74.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimori et al. (WO 2020/230454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimori et al. discloses a drill press 1, comprising: a main housing 10; a drill unit 16 supported by the main housing for relative movement therewith; and a base 12 coupled to the main housing, the base includes a magnet assembly 28/32 to create a magnetic field for magnetically latching the base to a workpiece.
Regarding claim 8, Fujimori et al. discloses wherein the drill unit 16 is powered by a power tool battery pack 14.
Regarding claim 9, Fujimori et al. discloses wherein the power tool battery pack 14 disposed on the main housing 10.
Regarding claim 10, Fujimori et al. discloses further comprising at least one LED 52 disposed on the main housing 10 and electrically powered by the power tool battery pack 14.
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 of this title, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Otsuka et al. (US 7,936,142).
Regarding claim 5, Morton discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Morton does not disclose wherein the base further comprising a switch assembly for detecting the magnet assembly in at least one of the first and second positions. Otsuka et al. teaches the use of a drill press 1 that comprises a main housing 2, a drill unit 3, and a base 16 comprising a magnet 16 for generating a magnetic force, further comprising a switch 36 for providing power that is used in cooperation with a detector 20 and alarm that is used for detecting when the magnet is in a disconnected position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the drill press of Morton with the switch and detector/alarm assembly of Otsuka et al. in order to be able to automatically determine whether or not the magnetic assembly is in an off or on position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 11 February 2026