DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, per present ¶ [[38]. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The examiner also notes that present figure 1 appears to also be "prior art", as the invention appears to be discussed with respect to figures 3+ (¶s [23] & [42]) although the examiner is unsure.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: at least element number 342 in fig 7 is not used in the specification.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The "configuration" of the "core blade" so as "to be connectable to another core blade so that an overall length of the core blade increases" of claim 11 is not shown. "Core blade 346" is depicted entirely generically with no details while the claim attempts to recite a specific "configuration" that is neither shown nor discussed in detail. The examiner notes that the prior art 103 rejection of this feature below suggests this not need be shown in meticulous detail for PHOSITA. But given the current wording and lack of a written record about the structural implications of claim 11, the objection is respectfully made.
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites "a gear unit provided at the pillar unit" and "a plurality of support frames provided at the support frame unit". The examiner respectfully views "provided at" as being grammatically awkward at best and reasonably indefinite for unclearly defining what features are sub-elements of the larger more general features.
In other words, is the "plurality of support frames" separate from the "support frame unit" are a sub-element of the "support frame unit"? There is a significant structural distinction between these interpretations. The first requires both "a support frame unit" and "a plurality of support frames", while the second requires a larger, more generalized "support frame unit" that defines within it "a plurality of support frames". The same is applicable to the "gear unit".
Claim 1 also recites "the pillar unit is provided so as to be mountable and demountable through the plurality of connection portions" but the claim is silent as to what it is "mountable and dismountable" from, which the examiner respectfully asserts is reasonably necessary for this limitation to have clear meaning. The examiner interprets it as at least encompassing "dismountable" from the "excavator" in the prior art rejections below. The claim on its on is conspicuously silent as to what the "mountable and dismountable" is directed towards, and it is improper to import such a limitation into the claim where not required per MPEP 2111.01, subsection II. Applicant themselves acknowledge as much in present ¶s [30], [31]. & [68]. This also has structural implications on the "through the plurality of connection portions" limitations.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "the gear unit provided at the pillar unit", which is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 1 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
Claim 2 further recites "a core body configured to define a framework of the core unit and to be engaged with the rack gear". The examiner views the emphasized transitional phrases as rending the related / implied structural limitations unclear. These transitional phrases are equivocating and verbose. What does "configured to define a framework" mean? Is there "a framework" or not? Is the "core body" engaged with the "rack gear" or not? Is Applicant attempted to claim "a core drill system" or a collection of unassembled parts like a kit claim? Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, & 11 depend from claim 2.
Claim 8 recites "the excavator connection unit comprises: a fixing frame fixedly coupled between the support frame unit and the excavator connection unit".
The examiner holds this to be indefinite because the claim expressly recites the "fixing frame" and being a sub-feature of the "excavator connection unit" but then subsequently recites it is connected externally to the "excavator connection unit". In other words, how can a sub-feature of the connection unit be connected between the connection unit and an additional feature?
Claim 11 recites "the core blade of the core drill unit is configured to be connectable to another core blade…" however no such configuration is shown or taught, as similarly discussed in the drawing objections and 112(a) rejection above. The examiner therefore similarly holds claim 11 to be indefinite in light of the specification because there is no disclosure as to what this "configuration" structurally requires.
The examiner respectfully notes that this could also be viewed as a 112(a) "lack of written description" issue (MPEP 2163.03, subsection V - "Original Claim Not Sufficient Described") but opts for the indefiniteness rejection at this time, in light of the prior art 103 rejection of claim 11 below.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2005-0035488 (Kim), published 04/18/2005. A copy and machine translation of Kim is included with this action. The examiner will cite the English paragraphs by page number on the translation.
Independent claim 1. Kim discloses a core drill system for an excavator ("a drilling machine mounted on a small excavator… with the core (20) in which the perforation bit (21) is included" - abstract, page 2; figure 5), the core drill system comprising:
an excavator connection unit ("excavator connection portion 14" - figs 1 & 5; second full ¶ of page 7) configured to be coupled to an excavator (fig 5);
a pillar unit (11, fig 1) mounted in a vertical direction beside the excavator connection unit (ibid);
a support frame unit (bottom plate extending between 11, 12, & 13, clearly shown in fig 1 but not individually numbered) configured to support the excavator connection unit and the pillar unit (the bottom is clearly shown as "supporting" the upper portions in fig 5);
a core drill unit ("core (20) in which the "perforation bit (21) is included" and the surrounding frame, generally defined by "sliding plate 41" at the back side. The overall frame that supports 20 & 21 is clearly shown in figs 1-3 & 5, but not individually numbered) engaged with and supported by a gear unit ("rack 42" and "pinion 43" - figs 2 & 3; last full ¶ of page 8) provided at the pillar unit (on element 11), the core drill unit being configured to perforate an object (fig 5); and
a first motor ("drive motor (40)" - fig 4 & the last full ¶ of page 8) configured to supply power to the core drill unit so that the core drill unit moves in the vertical direction to perforate the object (ibid and page 10), wherein the pillar unit comprises a plurality of connection portions (11 connects directly with the bottom plate and directly connects with 13: fig 1. In other words, the "plurality of connection portions" of 11 are drawn to the point where 11 contacts other features), and the plurality of connection portions is connected to a plurality of support frames (12 & 13) provided at the support frame unit (both 12 & 13 directly contact the bottom plate: fig 1), and wherein the pillar unit (11) is provided so as to be mountable and demountable through the plurality of connection portions (11 is mountable and demountable to the excavator via 12 & 13, which connect 11 to 14: fig 5).
2. The core drill system according to claim 1, wherein the gear unit ("rack 42" and "pinion 43" - figs 2 & 3; last full ¶ of page 8) provided at the pillar unit comprises a rack gear ("rack 42"), and wherein the core drill unit ("core (20) in which the "perforation bit (21) is included" and the surrounding frame, generally defined by "sliding plate 41" at the back side - fig 1) comprises a core body configured to define a framework of the core drill unit (the framework clearly shown in fig 1 with only "sliding pate 41" being expressly numbered) and to be engaged with the rack gear (via "sliding plate 41" - 3rd and 4th full ¶ of page 10) so as to be movable upward and downward (page 10) and a core blade ("core (20) in which the "perforation bit (21) is included") connected to the core body to perforate the object (fig 5).
3. The core drill system according to claim 2, further comprising a second motor ("hydraulic motor 30" - 3rd ¶ of page 8) configured to supply rotational power to the core blade ("the core rotating means is a hydraulic motor 30…" - 3rd ¶ of page 8).
4. The core drill system according to claim 1, further comprising a reducer ("reducer 45" - ¶ bridging pages 8 & 9) connected to the first motor (fig 4) to supply power less than power generated by the first motor to the core drill unit ("reducer 45").
5. The core drill system according to claim 2, further comprising a reducer ("reducer 45" - ¶ bridging pages 8 & 9) connected to the first motor (fig 4) to supply power less than power generated by the first motor to the core drill unit ("reducer 45").
6. The core drill system according to claim 4, wherein the core drill unit perforates the object while being moved downward in the vertical direction by power controlled by the reducer (page 10).
7. The core drill system according to claim 5, wherein the core drill unit perforates the object while being moved downward in the vertical direction by power controlled by the reducer (page 10).
8. The core drill system according to claim 1, wherein the excavator connection unit ("excavator connection portion 14 may include… a connection bracket 14a formed on the rear surface portion 12 of the main body 10… and one or more fastening pins 14b fastened to the connection bracket 14a and the boom 1a of the excavator - second full ¶ of page 7) comprises:
a fixing frame (the vertical portion of "connection bracket 14a" which is "formed on the rear surface portion 12 of the main body 10" - second full ¶ of page 7. Shown in profile in figs 3 & 5) fixedly coupled between the support frame unit (bottom plate extending between 11, 12, & 13, clearly shown in fig 1 but not individually numbered) and the excavator connection unit (in light of the 112(b) rejection of this limitation above, it has been interpreted as best able. 14a is between the bottom plate and 14b, which connects to the excavator - second full ¶ of page 7), the fixing frame being configured to be rotatable 360 degrees (via the connection to the excavator - not positively required by the claim - "… for an excavator" and "configured to be coupled to an excavator" - claim 1. 14a is "configured" to be connected to a piece of equipment that is capable of rotating it 360 degrees so as to position the core drill at any radial position about the excavator. The excavator 1 is not a positive requirement of the claim and the frame is capable of being connected to equipment that can pivot and rotate); and
pillar frames extending in a horizontal direction (the horizonal "u-shape" portion of "connection bracket 14a" - second full ¶ of page 7 - "in which the boom 1a of the excavator 1 is interposed" and through which "one or more fastening pins 14b" extend - second full ¶ of page 7) and connected to a distal end of an arm of the excavator ("boom 1a") and to an end of a tipping link connected to the arm of the excavator (a tipping link at the end of boom 1a is clearly shown connected to 14a by 14b in fig 5 but not individually numbered).
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 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2005-0035488 (Kim) in view of US 2005/0126821 (Davies).
Claims 9 & 10: Kim discloses all the limitations of the parent claims but discloses that the first motor ("drive motor (40)" - fig 4 & the last full ¶ of page 8) is an electric motor powered by the excavator (last full ¶ of page 8), rather than a hydraulic motor.
However Davies discloses a vehicle conveyed (title, abstract) coring tool ("sample tube 1320" - fig 13 & ¶ 67) with a first motor ("The carriage 1014 is slidingly disposed on the drill mast 1008. The carriage 1014 is coupled to a flexible member 1016, such as a chain. Flexible member 1016 travels over sheave 1018 and is received by a winch 1020. The winch 1020 is used to regulate a height of the drill motor 1012 relative to the ground 1004 as the hole 1006 is being drilled as well as after the hole has been drilled. The winch 1020 is used to retract the drill bit and associated parts that end up down-hole after drilling. The winch 1020 can be hydraulically operated" - ¶ 53) that moves the coring tool vertically (ibid) on a rack ("drill mast 1008" - ibid) via the first hydraulic motor ("The winch 1020 can be hydraulic operated" - ibid) driven by a pressure control method (hydraulic actuation is a "pressure control method" in that hydraulics are the controlled application of pressure to generate desired motion and force).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a hydraulic motor to move the drilling carriage vertically as taught by Davies in place the electrical motor taught by Kim. First, the use of a different but well known actuation method in place of another, to achieve the same end result is a textbook case of the obviousness of simple substitution. MPEP 2143, subsection I(B). Davies teaches that hydraulic actuation of the drilling tool raising and lowering is known in the art. Further, Kim already teaches that the excavator should have a hydraulic power take-off used to supply hydraulic power (first paragraph of the "Background Art" - page 4) thus suggesting the use.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2005-0035488 (Kim) in view of KR 10-2015-0114777 (Ahn). Ahn was published 10/13/2015. A machine translation of Ahn is included with this action.
Claim 11. Kim discloses all the limitations of the parent claims, but does not expressly disclose that the core blade ("core (20) in which the "perforation bit (21) is included", as described for claim 2 above) of the core drill unit is configured to be connectable to another core blade so that an overall length of the core blade increases. Rather the "core blade" is disclosed somewhat generically, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for the details of actual construction.
Ahn discloses a vertically moving, rotatably driven, coring tool assembly (abstract; fig 3) wherein the core blade ("core tube 160" - only major paragraph on page 9) is configured to be connectable to another core blade ("core bit portion 161" - last full ¶ of page 11) so that an overall length of the core blade increases (fig 3). In other words, Ahn discloses a coring bit assembly with sub-portions joined by threads (fig 3). This both increases the overall length as shown in figure 3, and means they are "configured to be connectable" to any other additional tubes that are not, apparently, a positive requirement of the claim. The examiner also notes that the present specification uses "blade" and "core blade" extremely broadly ("core blade 346" - present figure 3 & ¶ 17). There are no real "blades" shown, just a (presumably) hollow cylinder. This is not improper per se, but is noted because the mapping to the prior art is fully commensurate with the present specification's usage of the nomenclature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to use threads to join sections of the "core blade" as taught by Ahn in system disclosed by Kim. First, as discussed above, Kim's disclosure about the coring bit / tube / "blade" is at a high level of generality, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for details of actual construction. Second, the joining of drill pipe to extend the length of a drilling string into the borehole being drilled is replete and has been well known in the art of earth drilling almost since its inception, as PHOSITA would immediately recognize. Third, Aha teaches that it is specifically known in a directly analogous coring assembly. Finally, Aha teaches that this assembly allows for the separation of the bit ("core bit portion 161" - fig 3) to the "core tube 160" (ibid). This allows for changing, replacing, repairing, and transporting of bits without transporting the full coring tube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571.270.7741. 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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676