Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3, 2026 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites the at least one gyro sensor recognizes both a linear and a rotational movement component in order to determine the intuitive movement. Gyro sensors are known to only measure rotation—not linear motion. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches the gyro sensor determining rotational movement of the tool about any three spatial axes (see ¶ [0011] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Even when a user attempts to move the tool in a linear direction the tool will inevitably have some amount of rotation. It is this rotational movement component the gyro sensor recognizes—not the linear movement component (see ¶ [0012] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Thus, the gyro sensor recognizes the rotational movement of the tool when it is shaken—however Applicant’s invention does not provide support for the gyro sensor recognizing both linear and rotational movement components.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 15 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites between method steps a) and b), the core drill is started by a further action by the user of the core drill. Since step (b) of claim 1 also recites a starting step, in light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure it is unclear if two starting steps are required. For purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as: The method as recited in claim 14 wherein the core drill is started by detection of the intuitive movement and a further action by the user.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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.
Claims 14-16, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in view of USPGPub No. 2014/0102742 (“Eshleman”) and USPGPub No. 2018/0043517 (“Gauthier”).
Claim 14 recites method for releasing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill in a Z direction, the method comprising the following steps: b) starting an electronic shaking process for the drill core to aid in release of the drill core from the drill bit when the intuitive movement is detected. AAPA teaches removing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill by a user activating a switch which causes a shaking process (see ¶ [0002]-[0004], wherein all references to Applicant’s specification refer to Applicant’s originally filed specification).
AAPA fails to explicitly teach detecting [the] intuitive movement of the core drill by the core drill, the intuitive movement being defined as a manual shaking movement of an entirety of the core drill by a user substantially linearly in the Z direction. However, this would be obvious in view of Eshleman and Gauthier.
Eshleman is directed to controlling operation of a power tool other than with buttons, switches, and triggers (¶ [0002]-[0006]). Eshleman teaches the power tool comprises a gyroscope 22 therein that monitors rotational motion of the power tool (fig. 17, ¶ [0078]-[0079]). A controller of the power tool is configured to modify operation of the power tool upon a predetermined rotation of the power tool sensed by the gyroscope and/or shaking of the tool (¶ [0076], [0079]-[0084] & [0105]). Eshleman teaches other non-contact sensing methods that can be used individually or in combination, including optic sensors to sense when the tool is approaching or withdrawing from a workpiece and inertial sensors to detect linear motion of the tool towards or away form a workpiece (¶ [0075]). Eshleman teaches that this non-contact means of controlling operation of a power tool is a more intuitive and improved means (¶ [0006] & [0060]). Eshleman further teaches that other sensors other than a gyroscope can be used such as accelerometers (¶ [0078]).
Gauthier is also directed to a tool that can change modes via shaking of the tool (¶ [0002] & [0082]). The tool has an accelerometer therein that is capable of sensing movement above a certain specified threshold for the device such that a firm shake of the device can be sensed while normal usage of the device is not sufficient to be detected (¶ [0082]). This activation mechanism prevents the need for separate buttons or other activation mechanisms disposed on the exterior of the device and/or housing (¶ [0082]).
In this case, AAPA teaches to start a shaking process after a drill process is complete, wherein the shaking process is started by a user actuating a switch on the power tool (see ¶ [0004] of AAPA). Eshleman and Gauthier teach one of skill in the art that non-contact sensing methods to control operation of a power tool are known substitutes to mechanical switches/triggers/buttons. Specifically, each of Eshleman and Gauthier teach that shaking the tool can switch between different operation modes, wherein Gauthier teaches that an accelerometer can be provided to detect linear shaking of the tool. Thus, in order to more intuitively and efficiently start a shaking process, it would be obvious to modify AAPA so that the power tool comprises an accelerometer to detect manual shaking of the tool in order to start the electronic shaking process.
Given the above modification, the tool of AAPA et al. can start a shaking process after detecting a linear shaking motion along any axis. While AAPA et al. fail to explicitly teach shaking the tool along the Z-axis, this would be an obvious engineering choice since the accelerometer in the tool of AAPA et al. can start a shaking process after detecting a linear shaking motion along any axis.
Claim 15 recites between method steps a) and b), the core drill is started by a further action by the user of the core drill. MPEP 2144.06(I) states that it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose. In this case, AAPA et al. teach a variety of ways to start a shaking process (i.e. shaking the tool and a user activating a switch). Thus, it is prima facie obvious to combine both the detection of the intuitive movement and the actuation of a switch to start a shaking process.
Regarding claim 16, AAPA et al. fails to explicitly teach the shaking process is ended by a second action by the user of the core drill. However, this is also obvious in view of Eshleman.
Eshleman teaches a combination of sensing methods can be used, for example one for startup and one for shutdown (¶ [0076]). Eshleman further teaches that after the gyroscope modifies/controls operation of the power tool when sensing a first rotation, it can continue to sense additional rotation of the power tool to further control/modify operation (¶ [0079]-[0084]). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to shutdown the shaking process of AAPA et al. when a further intuitive movement is sensed (e.g. the user shakes the tool again).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA et al. further teaches the intuitive movement of the core drill is detected by a sensor (see rejection to claim 14 above, i.e. by the accelerometer taught by Gauthier).
Claim 22 recites a core drill for carrying out the method as recited in claim 14 the core drill comprising a sensor for detecting the intuitive movement of the core drill. As detailed in the rejection to claim 14 above, AAPA teaches a core drill that can carry out the method of claim 14. Furthermore, as detailed in the above rejection to claim 14, AAPA et al. teach a sensor within the core drill to detect the intuitive movement (specifically the accelerometer).
Claim 24 recites the core drill does not require an additional switch for activating the shaking process. As detailed in the rejection to claims 14 and 22, above, the shaking process is activated only by the intuitive movement and does not require a switch.
Regarding claim 25, AAPA et al. further teaches a controller set up to recognize the intuitive movement of the core drill and to start the shaking process as a reaction to the recognition of the intuitive movement (¶ [0079]-[0080] of Eshleman, wherein the power tool comprises a controller that receives input from the sensor(s) and operates the power tool based upon input from the sensor(s)).
Claim 27 recites the detection of the intuitive movement is independent of a user interfacing with a button or switch. As detailed in the rejection to claims 14 and 22, above, the sensor(s) are configured to detect an intuitive movement whether or not a user is directly interfacing with a button or switch since the shaking process is activated by the intuitive movement and does not require a switch or button (the intuitive movement replaced the additional switch of AAPA).
Claims 18, 26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA et al. as applied to claims 14 and 22, respectively, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,733,074 (“Stock”).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA et al. fails to explicitly teach the shaking process is brought about by making a motor of the core drill vibrate with current. However, this would have been obvious in view of Stock.
Stock is also directed to a core drill comprising a rotating drill bit 3 (fig. 1, col. 1 lines 5-52, col. 7 lines 15-20). Stock teaches that in addition to comprising a motor that rotates a shaft and bit 3, the drill comprises an electro-acoustic converter and a vibration amplifier to provide ultrasonic vibrations to the shaft and drill bit (fig. 1, col. 7 lines 15-29).
In this case, AAPA teaches to provide an electronic shaking process to the core drill to remove a drill core, but is silent as to the specific means to provide the shaking. Stock teaches a known means to provide vibration/shaking to a core drill and drill bit that is separate from a motor means to rotate the drill bit. Thus, in order to carry out the shaking process of AAPA, it would be obvious to provide the core drill of AAPA with an electro-acoustic converter and a vibration amplifier. This means reads on “motor” because it comprises a machine that converts electrical energy into movement/mechanical energy of the shaft and drill bit. Further, the electro-acoustic converter operates via current.
Regarding claim 26, AAPA et al. fail to explicitly teach a motor, the core drill set up to make the motor vibrate with current. However, this would be obvious in view of Stock for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 18, above.
In addition, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art for drills to rotate drill bits via electric motors. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to use an electric motor to rotate the drill bit of the core drill of AAPA. Since electric motors use current to function, and one of skill in the art will reasonably infer the electric motor has some amount of vibration when operating (due to the rotating parts), this electric motor reads on the claimed motor.
Claim 31 recites the motor is not running during the intuitive movement. As detailed in the rejection to claim 14, above, the intuitive movement happens after a drilling process and before the shaking process. Thus, the motor for performing the shaking process as detailed in the rejection to claim 18, above, is not running during the intuitive movement. Further, while not explicitly taught by the rejection, it is obvious for the motor that rotates the drill bit to also be off during this time period since the drill process is over and the shaking step has not yet begun.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest starting an electronic shaking process after sensing the substantially linear manual shaking movement via a gyroscope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amended claims overcome the previous prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
