DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-16 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 1 recites “a tool driving device for cutting, a user carrying the tool driving device by hand to use the tool driving device” at lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the user is part of the claimed invention.
Each of claims 2-16 depends from claim 1, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1 above.
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 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 3,357,275 to Green et al. (hereinafter “Green”).
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses a tool driving device (see Fig. 4) for cutting, a user carrying the tool driving device by hand (see Col. 1, lines 9-12) to use the tool driving device, the tool driving device comprising: a spindle (64) having a holder (14) for holding a tool for cutting (intended use; drill 12; see Col. 3, lines 23-28), the holder being disposed at a distal portion (rightmost side; see Fig. 4) of the spindle; and an electric motor (28) for rotating the spindle, wherein a thrust bearing (70) is attached to a housing (10; see Fig. 4) of the electric motor, the spindle (64) being contacted to the thrust bearing (70) so that cutting resistance in a rotation axis direction of the spindle, transmitted from the tool to the spindle, is applied to the thrust being (see Col. 3, lines 45-50).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent 9,976,631 to Wittig (hereinafter “Wittig”).
Regarding claim 3, Green discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Green does not explicitly disclose that the electric motor is a coreless motor.
However, it is known in the art of electric cutting devices to provide a motor which is a coreless motor. For example, Wittig teaches such a drill. Wittig teaches an electric drill (250) including an electric motor (300) which may be a coreless motor (see Col. 8, lines 55-65). Wittig teaches that the electric motor could be one of several alternative motors (see Col. 8, lines 60-65). Wittig teaches that the motor may include gears (308a, 308b) disposed inside of the motor housing (318; see Fig. 13), with a spindle coupled to the coreless motor. Wittig teaches that its transmission system may be simple in design and reduce the cost of manufacture (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Green to include another and conventional electric motor, such as the electric motor taught by Wittig. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would be reasonably expected to be driven and drivable by the conventional coreless motor of Wittig, because Wittig already teaches that its motor is suitable for use in a drill device, and that electric motors may be substituted for one another. Further, using a coreless motor as taught by Wittig along with its transmission may reduce the cost of manufacturing such a drilling device. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)).
Thus, the combination of Green and Wittig teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent 3,583,822 to Alexander (hereinafter “Alexander”).
Regarding claim 5, Green discloses the limitations of claim 1. Green does not explicitly disclose cutting a workpiece using the tool. Green teaches that its device may be a drill, but is silent about using the drill (Col. 1, lines 21-27). However, it is known in the art of hand drills to use the drills to cut a workpiece.
For example, Alexander teaches such. Alexander teaches a hand drill (see Figs. 1 and 2) having a motor (10) and a rotatable cutting tool (drill 130). Alexander teaches that the tool may be used cut a workpiece (see Col. 4, lines 66-69), producing holes therein (Col. 5, lines 4-7), thus producing a machined workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the drilling device taught by the combination of Green to perform a drilling or cutting operation on a workpiece, producing a machined workpiece, as taught by Alexander. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to be the result of use of a drill, as taught by Green.
Thus, the combination of Green and Alexander teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Green and Wittig as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of United States Patent 3,583,822 to Alexander (hereinafter “Alexander”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Green and Wittig teaches the limitations of claim 3, however the combination does not explicitly disclose cutting a workpiece using the tool. Green teaches that its device may be a drill, but is silent about using the drill (Col. 1, lines 21-27). However, it is known in the art of hand drills to use the drills to cut a workpiece.
For example, Alexander teaches a hand drill (see Figs. 1 and 2) having a motor (10) and a rotatable cutting tool (drill 130). Alexander teaches that the tool may be used cut a workpiece (see Col. 4, lines 66-69), producing holes therein (Col. 5, lines 4-7), thus producing a machined workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the drilling device taught by the combination of Green and Wittig to perform a drilling or cutting operation on a workpiece, producing a machined workpiece, as taught by Alexander. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to be the result of use of a drill, as taught by Green.
Thus, the combination of Green, Wittig, and Alexander teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 4, 6-10, and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “an annular pedestal disposed between the thrust bearing and the housing of the electric motor in the rotation axis direction of the spindle, the annular pedestal being disposed outside an output shaft of the electric motor, projected from the housing, at least a part of a thrust washer, on a spindle side, of the thrust bearing being projected, toward the spindle side, from an end face, on the spindle side , of the output shaft, by disposing the annular pedestal” and “so that torque is transmitted from the output shaft to the spindle while the cutting resistance is transmitted from the spindle to the housing through the thrust bearing and the annular pedestal” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “a guide having a positioning member for positioning the tool driving device to a workpiece, the positioning member including at least one of a positioning bush, a concentric collet and a fixing tool” and “a load cell for measuring the cutting resistance transmitted from the spindle to the housing through the thrust bearing and further transmitted from the housing to the reinforcing frame, the load cell being attached to the reinforcing frame; and a controller configured to control the electric motor and the electric actuator based on the cutting resistance measured by the load cell so that a rotating speed and a feeding speed of the spindle become a rotating speed and a feeding speed according to the cutting resistance,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. United States Patent 6,665,948 to Kozin et al. teaches a hand held drill (100) including a guide member (110) however, the guide member is not understood to disclose a positioning bush, a concentric collet, or a fixing tool.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “a guide having a positioning member for positioning the tool driving device to a workpiece, the positioning member including at least one of a positioning bush, a concentric collet and a fixing tool” and “a load cell for measuring the cutting resistance transmitted from the spindle to the housing through the thrust bearing and further transmitted from the housing to the reinforcing frame, the load cell being attached to the reinforcing frame; and a controller configured to control the electric motor and the electric actuator based on the cutting resistance measured by the load cell so that a rotating speed and a feeding speed of the spindle become a rotating speed and a feeding speed according to the cutting resistance,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0283230 to Sakakibara et al. (hereinafter” Sakakibara”) teaches a screw driving tool having a thrust bearing attached to a spindle.
United States Patent 4,688,970 to Eckman is directed to a cutting tool having an electric motor (66) for driving a cutting tool, with a load cell (46) for measuring compression due to thrust forces in use.
United States Patent 6,665,948 to Kozin et al. teaches a cutting tool (100) having thrust bearings (130, 132) and a load cell (118’) which outputs a signal representing a force applied to a drill bit to determine the depth of drilling.
United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0069885 to Huggenberger (hereinafter “Huggenberger”) teaches a hand held power tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726