DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 & 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2018/0133929 to Drexl.
Claim 50 (addressed out of order) recites a method for controlling a feed unit for feeding a core drill bit of a core drill system into a work object. Drexl relates to controlling such a feed unit. See Drexl [0001]. Figure 1 of Drexl shows the feed unit (30) has a feed motor (34) and a control unit (36). See Drexl [0043]-[0046]. Figure 1 further shows that the feed motor is arranged to be mechanically connected to a device (10) for feeding the core drill bit (50) into the work object (80). Drexl further teaches that the the feed motor [is]…controlled by the control unit via a motor control interface. See Drexl [0046].
Claim 50 then recites obtaining a…classification model…[that] classif[ies] a material currently engaged by the core drill bit into a pre- determined set of materials based on…data [from] the motor control interface [or]…from [feed unit] sensors, and controlling the feed motor based on the determined…material. Drexl teaches obtaining torque values from the motor control unit and/or sensors. See Drexl [0057]-[0060]. Drexl teaches comparing the torque during use against a threshold parameter of normal operation. See Drexl [0061]. Drexl teaches that if the torque varies by certain amount, the systems determines the bit has hit a steel reinforcement bar, which is a pre- determined….material. See Drexl [0066]-[0069]. Control unit will then alter the drive torque based on this information, which constitutes control[ing] the feed motor based on the determined…material.
Turning now to claim 1, this claim recites the feed unit itself. As with claim 50. Drexl teaches a feed unit (30) with a feed motor (34) and a control unit (36). See Drexl Fig. 1 & [0043]-[0046]. Figure 1 further shows that the feed motor is arranged to be mechanically connected to a device (10) for feeding the core drill bit (50) into the work object (80). Drexl further teaches that the the feed motor [is]…controlled by the control unit via a motor control interface. See Drexl [0046].
Claim 1 then recites that the control unit is arranged to obtain a computer implemented classification model. The phrase arranged to is interpreted as defining an intended use of the control unit. In other words, the control unit must be capable of accepting a computer program of some type, or some type of firmware. Claim 1 recites that the accepted model is configured to classify a material currently engaged by the core drill bit into a pre-determined set of materials, based on….motor control interface [data or] based on data obtained from…[feed unit] sensors. But this is merely further defining the original intended use. If a controller can accept any program, it is capable of accepting such a model. As such, claim 1 as written does not require that the control unit be capable, without any additional modification, or performing the steps of classify[ing] the material as recited. Thus, the existence of the feed unit’s control unit (36) anticipates this claim without even addressing what functions it performs. Likewise, this unit anticipates that the control unit is arranged to determine a material currently engaged by the core drill bit based on the classification model and based on the obtained data, and to control the feed motor based on the determined material currently engaged. Again, the language that the control unit is arranged to perform these steps merely requires that the prior art be capable, with modification (such as extra software) of performing these steps.
Applicant is advised to amend claim 1 to recite “the control unit is configured to classify” and “configured to control by on…” Going forward, this language will at least allow claim 1 to require the prior art to teach the same method steps recited in claim 50.
Regarding claim 2, Drexl teaches the pre-determined set of materials comprises air and one or more work object materials specifically reinforced concrete with ambient air entering through the drill hole. See Drexl [0074]. Likewise, Drexl teaches the pre-determined set of materials [include] one or more…levels of concrete maturity as recited in claim 3. Id. Claim 4 recites the computer implemented classification model is configured to classify a material composition of the work object into a pre-determined set of material compositions based on the obtained data. Again, this is mere intended use. But in fact, Drexl does teach this step. See Drexl [0067]-[0074]. Regarding claim 5, Drexl teaches the concrete includes a metal reinforcement bar (81) material that may be hit. See Drexl [0068]. Claim 6 recites that the control unit is arranged [to]…adjust[t] a pressure on the core drill bit in response to detecting that the core drill bit has engaged a metal reinforcement bar material. Drexl teaches adjusting power output (and by extension torque) not pressure. Yet because this feature is presented as mere intended use, the control unit could be modified to instead adjust pressure with a software change, since the system does allow pressure control.
Claim 7 recites the control unit is arranged to communicate with a remote control device. Drexl does not explicitly teach using a remote control (although examiner considers this an obvious variant). But because this is mere use, the control unit could be modified to accept remote commands. This modification would then allow control [of] the feed motor via remote control. Claim 8 further modifies the intended use of claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-18 also all further limit intended uses to which the control unit could be modified to perform. As such, they are also anticipated by the control unit of Drexl.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0133929 to Drexl in view of U.S. 2007/0217879 to Larsson.
Claim 55 recites a concrete processing system. Drexl relates to such a system. See Drexl [0015] and [0074]. Drexl teaches a core drilling system [with] a feed unit (30) with a feed motor (34) and a control unit (36). See Drexl [0038]-[0046] & Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Dexl further shows the feed motor is arranged to be mechanically connected to a device for feeding a core drill bit of the core drill system into a work object, and to be controlled by the control unit via a motor control interface. Id. Claim 55 also recites several intended uses of the control unit that mirror language from claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 55 also explicitly recites the system has a remote control device. Drexl does not explicitly teach a remote-control device. But it would have been obvious to modify it to include one in view of Larsson. Larsson also relates to a core drilling device with a feed unit and feed motor. See Larsson [0003]. Thus, Larsson is analogous art. Larsson further teaches the device has a remote control. Id. Thus, remote controls were known in the core drilling arts, making it predictable to use one in Larsson. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Drexl to include a remote control as taught by Larsson.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”