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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that the examination of group II in addition to group I is proper. Without addressing the substance of the arguments, upon examination of group I, Group II was deemed not to be a serious burden and examined as well, as detailed below. Claim 68 which is directed towards a non-elected method has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20-22, 24-25 and 27 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of a load sensing device to detect an axial load exerted on a housing of the machine tool when the load sensing attachment is coupled to the machine tool (emphasis added). It is unclear if this limitation means that the load sensing device detects the load during the coupling of the tool, or if it detects the axial load during use of the tool.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the limitation of varying lengths which overlap and encompass a number of values. It is not clear as to which value would be required to satisfy the limitations of the claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation of “a wave spring washer of a thrust bearing assembly in the load sensing device,” however no such assembly has been previously disclosed as part of the load sensing device and it is not clear if the features are being added as part of the load sensing attachment itself, or an additional element. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the load sensing device further comprises a thrust bearing assembly with a wave spring washer or similar.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 12, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schevers US 2013/0071195.
Regarding claim 1, Schevers teaches a load sensing attachment for a machine tool assembly as seen in fig. 1, comprising:
a machine tool interface (threaded shaft 58 seen in fig. 3, paragraph 0025) to couple the load sensing attachment 16 to a drive train (drill motor 12) for a machine tool of the machine tool assembly;
a load sensing device (thrust indicator assembly 16) to detect an axial load exerted on a housing of the machine tool (Schevers teaches the force as being a thrust indicated by numeral 21 in fig. 4 which is an axial load along the axis of the tool and is exerted on the housing of the tool 10) when the load sensing attachment is coupled to the machine tool; and
a bit clamp interface (threaded surface 64 of element 24, paragraph 0026) to couple the load sensing attachment 16 to a bit clamp (drill chuck 14) that selectively receives and secures a working bit (drill bit 18), the bit clamp interface coupled to the machine tool interface (as seen in fig. 3, all elements are coupled).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the tool of Schevers is a power drill assembly as claimed (abstract, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the bit clamp of Schevers is a chuck (abstract), in particular a keyed chuck as seen in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 5, the working bit of Schevers is a drill bit 18 as claimed (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 6, Schevers discloses the drive train translating rotational force produced by a rotational drive in the machine tool to the load sensing attachment (via drill motor 12) and the load sensing attachment translates the rotational force to the bit clamp and the working bit (via driven member 24) during operation of the machine tool assembly.
Regarding claim 7, the axial load of Schevers is along a longitudinal axis 21 which is in the claimed direction as seen in fig. 3 and fig. 4, with the bit clamp and working bit extending along the same axis during operation.
Regarding claim 8, the work surface 118 of Schevers has a two-dimensional portion as claimed. However, it is noted that the work surface is not part of the load sensing attachment and therefore would not affect the structure thereof.
Regarding claim 11, the load sensing attachment of Schevers extends the drive train of the machine tool to the bit clamp by providing the rotation from the drill motor through driven member 24 (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 12, Schevers teaches a drive extension 58 to couple the load sensing attachment to the drive train of the machine tool as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, Schevers teaches an enclosure (at outer surface 101 and element 54, fig. 3) which is sized to cover the machine tool interface, the load sensing device and at least a portion of the bit clamp interface 24 as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, Schevers teaches
a machine tool assembly for performing an operation on a workpiece, comprising: a machine tool 10, comprising: a housing defining a proximal housing portion and a distal housing portion;
a rotational drive (drill motor12) disposed within the housing that selectively provides a rotational force; and a drive train 58 coupled to the rotational drive that selectively rotates in response to the rotational force from the rotational drive (shaft 58 rotates during operation);
a bit clamp 14 that selectively receives and secures a working bit 18; and
a load sensing attachment 16 defining a proximal attachment portion and a distal attachment portion, the proximal attachment portion adjacent to the distal housing portion of the machine tool, the load sensing attachment comprising:
a load sensing attachment for a machine tool assembly as seen in fig. 1, comprising:
a machine tool interface (threaded shaft 58 seen in fig. 3, paragraph 0025) to couple the load sensing attachment 16 to a drive train (drill motor 12) for a machine tool of the machine tool assembly;
a load sensing device (thrust indicator assembly 16) to detect an axial load exerted on a housing of the machine tool when the load sensing attachment is coupled to the machine tool (Schevers teaches the force as being a thrust indicated by numeral 21 in fig. 4 which is an axial load along the axis of the tool and is exerted on the housing of the tool 10); and
a bit clamp interface (threaded surface 64 of element 24, paragraph 0026) to couple the load sensing attachment 16 to a bit clamp (drill chuck 14) that selectively receives and secures a working bit (drill bit 18), the bit clamp interface coupled to the machine tool interface (as seen in fig. 3, all elements are coupled).
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.
Claim(s) 20-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schevers and Machida US 4,193,720.
Regarding claim 20, Schevers teaches the bit clamp interface comprising a body comprising an exterior wall and an extended drive stud 64 and the exterior wall forming a central cavity 56 to receive a distal portion of the machine tool interface 58. Schevers does not explicitly teach the pair of crosswise apertures and pin arrangement as claimed.
Machida teaches a force detector for a drill which, as seen in fig. 12, comprises a first element 212 and second element 212’ which are coupled together by a pin 221 inserted through a crosswise hole 222. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Machida with those of Schevers to provide a similar pin to mate the machine tool interface with the body to better prevent the two pieces from coming apart during use.
Regarding claim 21, the extended drive stud 64 on the body of the bit clamp interface comprises external threads for threaded engagement by the bit clamp as claimed (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 22, in combination, Schevers and Machida teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the pin as a clevis pin and a cotter pin combination, a grooved clevis pin and a retaining clip combination, a tension roll pin, a bolt and a nut combination and a bolt without the nut. Each of these options performs the same function as that of the pin of Machida in that they maintain their position to connect the two elements. Each of the claimed pin configurations were well known at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a securing means such as the cotter pin or bolt to connect the elements in a semi-permanent manner since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 24, the hole of Machida is elongated and circular but does not explicitly disclose the specific size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have chosen any size hole which would both fit within the elements it connects without weakening them, and would connect them without breaking since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schevers and Machida and further in view of Samoilov US 2017/0021430.
Regarding claim 25, Schevers and Machida disclose the claimed invention wherein the pin of the bit clamp interface and the elongated crosswise hole in the distal portion of the machine tool interface from a slip joint mechanism that permits axial movement of the bit clamp interface in response to an axial force being applied to the housing of the machine tool but do not explicitly disclose the use of a wave spring washer as claimed.
Samoilov teaches a handheld power tool in which a thrust bearing 28 is located in line with a wave spring washer 80 (fig. 2). When assembled the two would form a thrust bearing assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Samoilov with those of Schevers and Machida to provide a similar wave spring washer inline with the other components in order to provide pressure in the system for a tighter fit between elements when assembled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 of Schevers and Machida does not teach the limitations of claim 14 with regard to the load cell disposed at a proximal portion of the load sensing device to detect the axial load, the load cell comprising a central through hole that provides a clearance fit over the machine tool interface and an electrical interface that provides signals indicative of axial load measurements; a thrust bearing assembly disposed between the load cell and the bit clamp interface, the thrust bearing assembly comprising a central aperture that provides a clearance fit over the machine tool interface; and a reducer bushing disposed between the load cell and the thrust bearing assembly, the reducer bushing comprising a central opening that provides a clearance fit over the machine tool interface and a cupped area that receives and retains the thrust bearing assembly between the reducer bushing and the bit clamp interface. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights