Detailed Action1
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 3a. The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) & (m) because the core drill 1 has dark shaded areas that does not aid in understanding the invention, reduces legibility, and does not provide satisfactory reproduction characteristics. 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. 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 23 is objected to because of an informality: “incldues” is spelled incorrectly and should be changed to “includes”. Claims 22 and 25 are objected to because of an informality: for consistency, “the core drilling device” should be changed to “the core drill”. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
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.
Claims 14-26 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the scope of the preamble is different from the scope of the body of the claim, thus leading to confusion as to what is required to infringe the claim. The preamble is directed to a method of releasing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill. However, the body of the claim does not require a drill core being released—it merely requires the drill core being shook. Thus, it is unclear what is required to infringe the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring the drill core to be released from the drill bit at some point in steps a or b, or in another omitted step.
Claims 14, 22, and 25 recite an intuitive movement. The term “intuitive” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. What one finds “intuitive” may not be “intuitive” to another. The term is not defined by the claim or specification and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, an “intuitive movement” is interpreted as relatively broad and includes any movement that one of skill in the art could find intuitive, e.g. pulling a trigger to rotate a drill bit.
Further, it is unclear if the intuitive movement of claims 22 and 25 are referring to the intuitive movement of claim 14 (since claim 22 incorporates the method of claim 14 in the preamble).
Claim 16 recites a second action by the user. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the user”. In addition, claim 14 does recite a first action by a user, thus, it is unclear if claim 16 requires a first action by a user. It appears this claim is intended to depend from claim 15.
Claims 15, 17-21, 23-24, and 26 are rejected for depending from at least one of claims 14 and 22.
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 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Claim 14 recites method for releasing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill, the method comprising the following steps: a) detecting an intuitive movement of the core drill by the core drill; and b) starting a shaking process for the drill core. As detailed in the 112b rejection above, “intuitive movement” has a broad interpretation. 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). Thus, the core drill detects activation of the switch on the core drill (i.e. intuitive movement of the core drill) and starts a shaking process.
Regarding claim 17, AAPA further teaches the shaking process is an electronic function which is implemented in the core drill (¶ [0004]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2010/0086372 (“Werner”).
Claim 14 recites a method for releasing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill, the method comprising the following steps: a) detecting an intuitive movement of the core drill by the core drill; and b) starting a shaking process for the drill core. Werner teaches to release a drill core from a drill bit (82/94) of a core drill by rotating the drill in a counterclockwise direction to force a plunger downward to eject a drill core within the drill bit 82 (figs. 5-8 & 11-12, ¶ [0033] & [0043]). This reads on step “b” since these kinds of rotating shafts always have some amount of vibration/shaking. Werner also teaches a drill being a hand-held drill having a trigger thereon (see figs. 10-12, ¶ [0006]). One of skill in the art appreciates that a user pulls/actuates the trigger to rotate the shaft 76. Thus, the drill will detect actuation of the trigger of the core drill in order to rotate the shaft 76. This reads on step “a” since a part of the core drill (i.e. trigger) is moved and is detected by the core drill in order to rotate the shaft that stars a vibrating/shaking process.
Claim 15 recites between method steps a) and b), the core drill is started by a further action by a user of the core drill. When interpreting step “a” of claim 14 as a user pulling the trigger to rotate the shaft clockwise to cut the drill core from the workpiece (fig. 10, ¶ [0042]), subsequently pulling the trigger to rotate the shaft counterclockwise reads on the limitation of claim 15 as this is done by a user and is between steps a & b (see figs. 10-12, ¶ [0042]-[0043]).
Claim 16 recites the shaking process is ended by a second action by the user of the core drill. A user releasing the trigger will end the rotation and vibration of the shaft—thus ending the shaking process.
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA.
Claim 14 recites method for releasing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill, the method comprising the following steps: a) detecting an intuitive movement of the core drill by the core drill; and b) starting a shaking process for the drill core. With respect to step b, AAPA teaches removing a drill core from a drill bit of a core drill by manually shaking or by a user activating a switch to cause a shaking process (see ¶ [0002]-[0004]). With respect to detecting an intuitive movement, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art for drills to have triggers that when actuated by a user rotate the motor and drill bit. Thus, in order to allow a user to use the core drill of AAPA, it would be obvious to provide the core drill with a trigger that allows a user to rotate the motor and drill bit.
Given the above modification, actuation/movement of the trigger on the core drill is interpreted as the “intuitive movement”, and is detected by the core drill in order to rotate the motor of the core drill.
Claim 15 recites between method steps a) and b), the core drill is started by a further action by a user of the core drill. The further action is interpreted as the user actuating the switch to begin the shaking process (¶ [0004] of AAPA), or by a user manually hammering and/or shaking the drill core (¶ [0003]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of US Patent No. 5,733,074 (“Stock”).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA (as applied to either rejection of claim 14 above) 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.
Claims 19, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of USPGPub No. 2016/0311094 (“Mergener”).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA as applied to the 103 rejection of claim 14, above, fails to explicitly teach the intuitive movement of the core drill is detected by a sensor. However, this would have been obvious in view of Mergener.
Mergener is also directed to a power tool that can rotate a shaft/bit (¶ [0002], [0037] & [0150]). The tool rotates the motor/shaft when a user presses the trigger 212 (fig. 2, ¶ [0043] & [0051]). Mergener teaches the trigger operating the motor in a variety of ways, including using a position sensor that senses the position of the trigger with respect to the electrical trigger switch 213 (¶ [0043] & [0051]). When the trigger is actuated, the sensor sends a signal to a controller 226 to provides power to the motor and controls the amount of current available to the motor to thereby control the speed of the motor (¶ [0051]-[0055]). Using a position sensor can also allow for different rotational speeds of the shaft/bit (¶ [0051]).
In this case, each of AAPA and Mergener are directed to a power tool actuated via a trigger. Mergener teaches that there are different ways a trigger can operate the tool, including using a position sensor that sends signals on the position of the trigger to a controller, wherein the controller can control the amount of current supplied to an electric motor. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to modify AAPA so that the core drill has a position sensor to detect the position of the trigger and send signals to a controller, wherein the controller provide power to an electric motor and control the amount of current available to the motor to thereby control the speed of the motor. This modification can allow the motor of AAPA to operate at different rotational speeds depending on the use of the tool and the material of the workpiece being worked on.
Claim 22 recites a core drill for carrying out the method as recited in claim 14 the core drill comprising a sensor for detecting an intuitive movement of the core drilling device. As detailed in the above 103 rejection to claim 14 over AAPA, AAPA teaches a core drill that can carry out the method of claim 14. Furthermore, as detailed in the above rejection to claim 19, AAPA in view of Mergener teach a sensor within the core drill to detect the intuitive movement of the trigger of the core drill.
Claim 26 recites a motor, the core drill set up to make the motor vibrate with current. As detailed in the rejection to claim 19, above, the actuation of the trigger leads to the sensor sending a signal to a controller 226 to provide power to an electric motor and control the amount of current available to the motor to thereby control the speed of the motor (¶ [0051]-[0055] of Mergener). Since motors such as those taught by AAPA et al. vibrate to some degree due to the rotating parts therein, the electric motor of AAPA et al. vibrates due to the electrical current supplied thereto.
In the alternative, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Mergener as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Stock.
Claim 26 recites a motor, the core drill set up to make the motor vibrate with current. As detailed in the rejection to claim 18, above, it would be obvious in view of Stock to provide the core drill of AAPA with an electro-acoustic converter and a vibration amplifier. This 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/vibrates via current.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner.
Claim 17 recites the shaking process is an electronic function which is implemented in the core drill. While Werner teaches the drill having a motor to rotate the shaft (¶ [0046]-[0047]), Werner fails to explicitly teach the motor being an electric motor. However, 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 shaft 76.
Claim 18 recites the shaking process is brought about by making a motor of the core drill vibrate with current. While Werner teaches the drill having a motor to rotate the shaft (¶ [0046]-[0047]), Werner fails to explicitly teach the motor being an electric motor. However, 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 shaft 76.
Given the above modification, the motor uses electrical current to rotate the shaft. Since such motors vibrate to some degree due to the rotating parts therein, the motor of Werner vibrates due to the electrical current supplied thereto.
Claims 19, 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of USPGPub No. 2016/0311094 (“Mergener”).
Regarding claim 19, Werner fails to explicitly teach the intuitive movement of the core drill is detected by a sensor. However, this would have been obvious in view of Mergener.
Mergener is also directed to a power tool that can rotate a shaft/bit (¶ [0002], [0037] & [0150]). The tool rotates the motor/shaft when a user presses the trigger 212 (fig. 2, ¶ [0043] & [0051]). Mergener teaches the trigger operating the motor in a variety of ways, including using a position sensor that senses the position of the trigger with respect to the electrical trigger switch 213 (¶ [0043] & [0051]). When the trigger is actuated, the sensor sends a signal to a controller 226 to provides power to the motor and controls the amount of current available to the motor to thereby control the speed of the motor (¶ [0051]-[0055]). Using a position sensor can also allow for different rotational speeds of the shaft/bit (¶ [0051]).
In this case, each of Werner and Mergener are directed to a power tool actuated via a trigger. Mergener teaches that there are different ways a trigger can operate the tool, including using a position sensor that sends signals on the position of the trigger to a controller, wherein the controller can control the amount of current supplied to an electric motor. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to modify Werner so that the core drill has a position sensor to detect the position of the trigger and send signals to a controller, wherein the controller provides power to an electric motor and controls the amount of current available to the motor to thereby control the speed of the motor. This modification can allow the motor of Werner to operate at different rotational speeds depending on the use of the tool and the material of the workpiece being worked on.
Claim 22 recites a core drill for carrying out the method as recited in claim 14, the core drill comprising a sensor for detecting an intuitive movement of the core drilling device. As detailed in the above rejection to claim 14 over Werner, Werner teaches a core drill that can carry out the method of claim 14. Furthermore, as detailed in the above rejection to claim 19, Werner in view of Mergener teach a sensor within the core drill to detect the intuitive movement of the trigger of the core drill.
Claim 24 recites the core drill does not require an additional switch for activating the shaking process. The tool of Werner et al. only requires activation of the trigger by the user to activate the shaking process. Thus, a second/additional switch is not required to be actuated by a user.
Claim 25 recites a controller set up to recognize an intuitive movement of the core drilling device and to start the shaking process as a reaction to the recognition of the intuitive movement. As detailed in the rejection to claim 19, above, the actuation of the trigger leads to the sensor sending a signal to a controller 226 to provide power to the motor and begin rotating/vibrating the drill bit and drill core (¶ [0051]-[0055] of Mergener).
Claim 26 recites a motor, the core drill set up to make the motor vibrate with current. As detailed in rejections to claims 19 and 22, above, the motor is an electrical motor that operates with electrical current. Since all motors similar to those taught by Werner et al. vibrate to some degree due to the rotating parts therein, the motor of Werner vibrates due to the electrical current supplied thereto.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of 2018/0297126 (“Drexl”).
Regarding claim 21, Werner fails to explicitly teach the intuitive movement of the core drill includes a shaking movement. However, this would have been obvious in view of Drexl.
Drexl is also directed to a core drilling device and a method of controlling a core drilling device (¶ [0001]-[0004]). The drilling method is controlled via a control unit and sensors that measure all parameters of the electric motor, including rotational speed and torque (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0028] & [0042]-[0050]). The control unit can sense when the drilling device breaks through a workpiece by sensing a reduced torque and/or increased rotation speed of motor 14, and then can subsequently reverse the motor (¶ [0048]-[0050]).
In this case, each of Werner and Drexl is directed to a core drilling device wherein the motor is capable of rotating the shaft both clockwise and counterclockwise, wherein each of Werner and Drexl teach reversing the rotation of the motor/shaft after breaking through a workpiece. Drexl teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to automate the drilling process wherein a control unit can determine when the drill bit breaks through a workpiece by monitoring the rotational speed of the motor/shaft, and can subsequently reverse the rotation of motor/shaft. Automated processes are generally more efficient, faster, and more accurate than manual processes. Thus, in order to provide a more efficient, faster, and/or more accurate drilling process, it would be obvious to automate the drilling process of Werner as taught by Drexl, i.e. the core drill comprising a control unit and sensors that measure parameters of the motor, wherein the control unit performs a drilling step, determines when the drill bit breaks through a workpiece by monitoring the rotational speed of the motor/shaft, and can subsequently reverse the rotation of motor/shaft to release the drill core from the drill bit.
Given the above modification, the sensor and controller determine when the core drill has drilled through the workpiece. This breakthrough is detected by the core drill via a change in speed/torque of the motor and motor shaft, i.e. intuitive movement. Since rotating shafts inherently have some amount of vibration/shaking, the intuitive movement, i.e. the rotation of the motor shaft and changes in speed thereof, includes a vibrating/shaking movement and a change in the vibrating/shaking movement.
Claim 22 recites a core drill for carrying out the method as recited in claim 14, the core drill comprising a sensor for detecting an intuitive movement of the core drilling device. As detailed in the above rejections to claims 14 and 21, Werner in view of Drexl teach a core drill that can carry out the method of claim 14. Furthermore, as detailed in the above rejection to claim 21, Werner in view of Drexl teach a sensor to detect the intuitive movement of the rotating shaft of the core drill.
Claims 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Drexl and USPGPub No. 2010/0265097 (“Obatake”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Werner fails to explicitly teach the intuitive movement of the core drill is detected by a sensor, wherein the sensor includes at least one gyro sensor. However, this would have been obvious in view of Drexl and Obatake.
As detailed in the rejection to claim 21, above, it is obvious in view of Drexl to modify Werner to automate the drilling process of Werner as taught by Drexl, i.e. the core drill comprising a control unit and sensors that measure parameters of the motor, wherein the control unit performs a drilling step, determines when the drill bit breaks through a workpiece by monitoring the rotational speed of the motor/shaft, and can subsequently reverse the rotation of motor/shaft to release the drill core from the drill bit.
Given the above modification, the sensor and controller determine when the core drill has drilled through the workpiece. This breakthrough is detected by the core drill via a change in speed/torque of the motor and motor shaft, i.e. intuitive movement. Since rotating shafts inherently have some amount of vibration/shaking, the intuitive movement, i.e. the rotation of the motor shaft and changes in speed thereof, includes a vibrating/shaking movement and a change in the vibrating/shaking movement. Werner in view of Drexl fail to explicitly teach the sensor being a gyro sensor. However, gyro sensors are known in the art to be able to measure rotational speed of rotating members. Obatake, which is directed to measuring parameters of a rotating shaft 152 of a power tool (figs. 1 & 3, ¶ [0002] & [0070]), teaches that it is known to use gyro sensors to detect and report angular velocity of a rotating drive/shaft 108 of the power tool (¶ [0056]-[0057]). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to use a gyro sensor to determine the rotational speed of the motor and shaft of Werner, and thus to determine changes in the rotational speed.
Regarding claim 23, Werner in view of Drexl teach claim 22 as detailed above. Werner in view of Drexl fail to explicitly teach the sensor includes at least one gyro sensor. However, this would have been obvious in view of Obatake for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claims 19 and 20, above.
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.”