DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/11/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “that expandable” in line 11, but appears that it should instead recite --that are expandable--.
Claim 22 recites “of collet” in line 4, but appears that it should instead recite --of the collet--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 22 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.
The term “securely” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Andersson (WO2019059825), and alternatively in view of Grant et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0328900).
Claim 1: Andersson discloses an offset collet lock for a positive feed drill (intended use - it is used for various drilling tools, page 1), the offset collet lock comprising: an actuator (electrical linear actuator 28 - page 9, lines 5-6); a bracket (30) that is coupled to the actuator (page 8, lines 32-33) and that is linearly movable along an actuation axis by the actuator (at least a portion thereof moves linearly horizontally with the actuator); a sleeve (at least a portion, e.g. upper portion, of 22) that is coupled to the bracket and that is linearly movable (vertically) along a drill axis (26), which is perpendicular to the actuation axis (vertical vs. horizontal), by the bracket (page 8, lines 30-33; page 11, lines 11-20); a mandrel (24) that is fixed relative to the sleeve and comprises a cylindrical portion (upper non-tapered portion evident in Fig. 1) and a widening tapered portion (lower portion with conical surface 32 - page 9, lines 8-9); and a collet (another portion, e.g. lower portion, of 22, in combination with 24) that is coupled to the sleeve and concentric to the mandrel (evident in drawings), wherein linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis moves the collet relative to the cylindrical portion and the widening tapered portion of the mandrel to radially expand or contract the collet (page 9, 13-20).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the intent to use the claimed collet lock with a positive feed drill does not necessarily limit the structure of the claimed invention.
Regarding the above, the sleeve and the collet portion of the instant application appear to be fixed relative to each other and move together as one relative to the mandrel portion of the concentric collet (see original claim 8). Thus, the examiner submits that the claimed sleeve and collet may be treated as two integral portions such that different portions (e.g. upper and lower portions) of the sleeve 22 of Andersson may read on them respectively. In the event this interpretation is deemed incorrect, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sleeve and collet of Andersson as two connected portions since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for their separability.
The collet appears to have unlabeled slits therein as evident in Figs. 2-3, but does not necessarily comprise a plurality of flexible fingers that [are] expandable in a radially outward direction. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that collets commonly include fingers (defined by slots) to improve flexibility thereof, and so it would have been obvious to have included the same on the collet of Andersson for this purpose.
The examiner also maintains that the bracket 30 is linearly movable along an actuation axis in that at least a portion thereof has a linear component of its movement. Alternatively, the bracket 30 is not movable in a purely linear fashion. However, Grant et al. teaches a mechanism by which an input (13) by an actuator linearly translates a bracket (20) along an actuator axis (4) which in turn linearly translates a downstream mechanism (30) along a perpendicular axis (6). See for example paragraphs 27-28 and 37-40. Because both Andersson and Grant et al. teach means for converting linear motion along an actuator axis to a linear motion along a perpendicular axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of translating the sleeve perpendicular to the actuator axis (MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Claim 2: Referring to Andersson, the offset collet lock further comprises a housing (14) that is couplable to the positive feed drill (the housing would be capable of this), wherein the housing is configured to enclose a spindle (16) that rotates about a drive axis of the positive feed drill (page 8, lines 25-26), which is parallel to the drill axis (Fig. 1), and a tool holder (whichever structure of 16 holds tool 18) that is coupled to the spindle and that rotates about the drill axis (Id.).
Claim 9: The actuator (28) comprises one of a linear actuator and a rotary actuator (an electrical linear actuator as cited above).
Claim 10: The actuator comprises one of a pneumatic actuator, a hydraulic actuator, and an electromechanical actuator (electromechanical as an electrical linear actuator as cited above).
Claims 3-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Grant et al.
Claim 3: The bracket (30) of Andersson moves relative to the housing (evident in Fig. 2). The housing does not explicitly comprise a bracket guide that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis. However, in teaching the alternate bracket mechanism, Grant further teaches a housing (10) comprising a bracket guide (14) that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis (paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a bracket guide that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis in order to have constrained motion of the cam mechanism as necessary for it to function properly.
Claim 4: The sleeve of Andersson moves (vertically) relative to the housing as previously cited. The housing does not explicitly comprise a sleeve guide that guides linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis. However, the outer surface of the sleeve mandrel is connected to the housing and would guide linear movement of the sleeve 22 and could thus be interpreted as a sleeve guide. Alternatively, in teaching the alternate bracket mechanism, Grant further teaches a housing (10) comprising a sleeve guide (16) that guides linear movement of the movable part (30) along the perpendicular axis (paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a sleeve guide that analogously guides linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis in order to have constrained motion of the cam mechanism as necessary for it to function properly.
Claim 5: The alternate mechanism as taught by Grant et al. further comprising a cam-follower (cam slot 28 and follower pin 36) mechanism that transfers linear movement of the bracket to linear movement of the sleeve (as cited above).
Claim 6: The sleeve of Andersson comprises a sleeve body that is cylindrical as cited above. The bracket does not necessarily comprise a first bracket arm and a second bracket arm, and the sleeve does not necessarily comprise a first sleeve arm that extends from the sleeve body and that is coupled to the first bracket arm, and a second sleeve arm that extends from the sleeve body and that is coupled to the second bracket arm. However, Grant further teaches that the cam structure can have a pair of mechanisms (one on each lateral side as shown in Figs. 6A-6C), each having a bracket arm (e.g. 27) and an arm (e.g. 37) that extends from the body (30/35) of the movable component (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have analogously provided a first bracket arm and a second bracket arm, a first sleeve arm that extends from the sleeve body and that is coupled to the first bracket arm, and a second sleeve arm that extends from the sleeve body and that is coupled to the second bracket arm, in order to have provide the requisite mechanical connections between the bracket and the sleeve for motion transfer.
Claim 7: Referring to Grant et al., each one of the first bracket arm and the second bracket arm (equivalent to 27 as discussed above) comprises a slot (28) that is oriented at an oblique angle relative to the actuation axis (4); and each one of the first sleeve arm and the second sleeve arm (analogous to 37) comprises a pin (36) that is located in and moves along the slot (paragraph 39).
Claim 21: Referring to Grant, the cam-follower mechanism comprises: a pin (36) coupled to an arm of the movable part 30 (analogous to the sleeve); and a slot (28) formed in a bracket arm (27) of the bracket (20); the slot is oriented at an oblique angle relative to the actuation axis (Fig. 1); linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis causes the pin to travel within the slot, thereby converting the linear movement of the bracket into linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis to expand or contract the fingers of collet (paragraph 39 - if applied analogously to Andersson as discussed above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson and optionally Grant et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bainvel (U.S. PGPub 2017/0173705).
While the drill is a powered tool, Andersson does not explicitly disclose a switch that actuates the actuator, where the actuator receives power from a power supply of the positive feed drill. However, Bainvel teaches a switch (control button) that actuates an actuator to expand a collet, where the actuator receives power from a power supply of the positive feed drill (paragraphs 36-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the Andersson device with a switch that actuates the actuator, where the actuator receives power from a power supply of the positive feed drill, in order to have allowed the operator to have controlled the tool at will.
Claims 12-14, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Nydegger (U.S. Patent 4,890,962, cited in IDS) and alternatively also Grant et al.
Claim 12: Andersson discloses a drilling system comprising: a drill that comprises: a spindle (16) and that is rotatable about a drive axis (26); a tool holder (portion that implicitly holds tool 18) that is coupled to the spindle and that is rotatable about and linearly moveable along a drill axis by the spindle; and an offset collet lock that is coupled to the drill and that comprises an actuator (electrical linear actuator 28 - page 9, lines 5-6); a bracket (30) that is coupled to the actuator (page 8, lines 32-33) and that is linearly movable along an actuation axis, which is perpendicular to the drill axis, by the actuator (at least a portion thereof moves linearly horizontally with the actuator); a sleeve (at least a portion, e.g. upper portion, of 22) that is coupled to the bracket and that is linearly movable (vertically) along the drill axis (26) by the bracket (page 11, lines 11-20); a mandrel (24) that is fixed relative to the sleeve and comprises a cylindrical portion (upper non-tapered portion evident in Fig. 1) and a widening tapered portion (lower portion with conical surface 32 - page 9, lines 8-9); and a collet (another portion, e.g. lower portion, of 22, in combination with 24) that is coupled to the sleeve and concentric to the mandrel (evident in drawings), wherein linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis moves the collet relative to the cylindrical portion and the widening tapered portion of the mandrel to radially expand or contract the collet (page 9, 13-20).
Regarding the above, the sleeve and the collet portion (136) of the "concentric collet" of the instant application appear to be fixed relative to each other and move together as one relative to the mandrel portion of the concentric collet (see also claim 8). Thus, the examiner submits that the claimed sleeve and collet may be treated as two integral portions such that different portions (e.g. upper and lower portions) of the sleeve 22 of Andersson may read on them respectively. In the event this interpretation is deemed incorrect, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sleeve and collet of Andersson as two connected portions since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for their separability.
The collet appears to have unlabeled slits therein as evident in Figs. 2-3, but does not necessarily comprise a plurality of flexible fingers that [are] expandable in a radially outward direction. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that collets commonly include fingers (defined by slots) to improve flexibility thereof, and so it would have been obvious to have included the same on the collet of Andersson for this purpose.
The drill of Andersson is not necessarily a positive feed drill, a motor to which the spindle is coupled is not explicitly recited, and the drill axis is not spaced apart from and parallel to the drive axis. However, Nydegger teaches a drilling system comprising: a positive feed drill (e.g. title) comprising a motor (82) to which a spindle (84) is coupled, and the drill (74) axis is spaced apart from and parallel to the drive axis (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an offset positive feed drill such as taught by Nydegger in conjunction with the collet lock of Andersson since such a drill is useful for work in limited access areas (Nydegger, column 1, lines 5-6; column 8, lines 7-17).
The examiner also maintains that the bracket 30 of Andersson is linearly movable along an actuation axis in that at least a portion thereof has a linear component of its movement. Alternatively, the bracket 30 is not movable in a purely linear fashion. However, Grant et al. teaches a mechanism by which an input (13) by an actuator linearly translates a bracket (20) along an actuator axis (4) which in turn linearly translates a downstream mechanism (30) along a perpendicular axis (6). See for example paragraphs 27-28 and 37-40. Because both Andersson and Grant et al. teach means for converting linear motion along an actuator axis to a linear motion along a perpendicular axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of translating the sleeve perpendicular to the actuator axis (MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Claim 13: Referring to Nydegger, the positive feed drill further comprises a power transmission that converts rotation of the spindle about the drive axis to rotation of the tool holder about the drill axis (column 8, lines 18-32) and linear movement of the tool holder along the drill axis (column 8, lines 42-55).
Claim 14: Nydegger also comprises a housing (12, 14) that encloses the spindle, the tool holder, and the power transmission.
Claim 18: Andersson further discloses a drill jig (template 6) that comprises an aperture (guide openings 8), wherein: the aperture is configured to receive the concentric collet (pages 8-9); expansion of the concentric collet engages the collet with the aperture; and contraction of the concentric collet disengages the collet from the aperture (Id.).
Claim 22: Andersson further discloses a drill jig (template 6), wherein: the drill jig comprises a drill plate (body of 6, see Fig. 1) defining an aperture (8) configured to receive the widening tapered portion of the mandrel and the fingers of the collet (Fig. 1); expansion of the fingers of [the] collet engages the aperture to securely attach the positive feed drill to the drill jig; and contraction of the fingers of collet disengages the aperture to release the positive feed drill from the drill jig (as discussed above).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson and Nydegger as applied to claims 14 and 12, respectively, above, and further in view of Grant et al.
Claim 15: The bracket (30) of Andersson moves relative to the housing (evident in Fig. 2), and the sleeve of Andersson moves (vertically) relative to the housing as previously cited. The housing does not explicitly comprise a bracket guide that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis or a sleeve guide that guides linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis. The outer surface of the sleeve mandrel of Andersson is connected to the housing and would guide linear movement of the sleeve 22 and could thus be interpreted as a sleeve guide. However, in teaching the alternate bracket mechanism, Grant further teaches a housing (10) comprising a bracket guide (14) that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis (paragraph 30), and also comprising a sleeve guide (16) that guides linear movement of the movable part (30) along the perpendicular axis (paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a bracket guide that guides linear movement of the bracket along the actuation axis and a sleeve guide that analogously guides linear movement of the sleeve along the drill axis in order to have constrained motion of the cam mechanism as necessary for it to function properly.
Claim 16: The alternate mechanism as taught by Grant et al. further comprising a cam-follower (cam slot 28 and follower pin 36) mechanism that transfers linear movement of the bracket to linear movement of the sleeve (as cited above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant essentially relies on amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art of record, The claims have been addressed in the modified rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. 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.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights