DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 14 both recite “wherein the size scale is presented based on metric system,” which is grammatically irregular and appears to be missing an article. It appears each claim should recite “wherein the size scale is presented based on the metric system” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1 and 4-12
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Great Britain Patent Application Publication 2533946 to Van Eijk et al. (hereinafter “Van Eijk”) in view of United States Patent 5,940,979 to Ericksen et al. (hereinafter “Ericksen”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Eijk discloses a drilling positioning device (see Fig. 1), comprising: a main body (1) comprising a first side (210) and a second side (120) disposed in parallel arrangement along a first direction (along direction Lp), and a first bores row (bores 116, 111, 11, 16, 26, 21, 221, 226) and a second bores row (118, 113, 13, 18, 28, 23, 223, 228) disposed in a parallel arrangement at intervals along a second direction (along direction Wp; see Fig. 1) perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 1); a handgrip part (2000) pivotally disposed on the first side (210) and comprising an observation hole (2019); and a center line (see Annotated Figure) extending along the second direction (along direction Wp) from the handgrip part (2000) toward the second side (120) between the first bores row (bores 116, 111, 11, 16, 26, 21, 221, 226) and the second bores row (118, 113, 13, 18, 28, 23, 223, 228), and arranged in parallel to the first bores row and the second bores row (see Annotated Figure below).
The phrase “bores row” is understood to be met by a row of bores or apertures taught by the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Eijk does not explicitly disclose that the center line is a physical centerline, though there are bores (117, 112, 12, 17, 27, 22, 222, 227) arranged along the line. However, it is known in the art of drilling guides to provide physical center lines on the guides. For example, Ericksen teaches such a guide.
Ericksen teaches a guide member (11) for marking holes for drilling a workpiece (see Col. 1, lines 12-18). The guide (11) includes a bores row 25 and a second parallel bores row (27), with a center line (54) located between the two bores rows. The device further includes a second line (51) which extends across a length of the device such that the line (51) can be aligned with portions of the workpiece to facilitate alignment (see Col. 3, lines 14-26; alignment facilitated with respect to either line 51 or centerline 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Van Eijk to include additional indicia, such as the physical centerline taught by Ericksen. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously provide for facilitating a desired alignment with respect to bores in the guide during drilling when the guide is used to drill a workpiece.
Thus, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Van Eijk discloses that a folding line (2200) is disposed between the first side (210) and the handgrip part (compare Figures 1 and 2), so that the handgrip part (2000) pivots about the folding line with respect to the main body (see Fig. 2; folded configuration shown); the center line is presented on two sides of the observation hole (see Annotated Figure above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 4, and further Ericksen teaches that the center line (54) comprises a first mark disposed on one side of an intersection of the centerline and the folding line (see Fig. 2; center line 54 would extend at least on one side of the intersection of the centerline and folding line in the combination).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further Van Eijk teaches a first indication line (10) and a second indication line (20) in parallel to the first indication line (see Fig. 1), the first indication line passing through the first bores rose from the first side to the second side (see Annotated Figure above), the second indication line passing through the second bores row from the first side to the second side (see Annotated Figure above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further Van Eijk teaches that the first indication line (10) and the second indication line (20) comprise a second mark on one side of the first side (see Fig. 1), respectively.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Van Eijk teaches further comprising a transverse indication line (line 1020 defined by slow 19; see Fig. 1) disposed in parallel to the first direction (along direction Lp), the transverse indication line passing through the center line to be connected between the first bores row and the second bores row (see Annotated Figure above).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further Van Eijk teaches that two third sides (sides shown in Fig. 4 along direction Wp) are connected between the first side (see Annotated Figure above) and the second side (see annotated Figured above), wherein a length of the first side is larger than a length of the third sides (as shown in Fig. 4, length inequality appears to be true). The examiner notes that the respective third sides are not understood to be required to connect directly to the first side and second side without intervening portions of the guide device.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 9, and further Van Eijk teaches that the first bores row (see Annotated Figure above) comprises a plurality of first bores (bores 116, 111, 11, 16, 26, 21, 221, 226) a first interval (see Fig. 1); the second bores row comprises a plurality of second bores (118, 113, 13, 18, 28, 23, 223, 228) disposed along the second direction at a second interval (see Fig. 1); the first interval is identical to the second interval (bores appear to be aligned with corresponding bores in the other bores row, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Van Eijk teaches that a third interval (space between bores 111 and 113 along direction Lp) is arranged between the first bores (bores 116, 111, 11, 16, 26, 21, 221, 226) and the positionally corresponding second bores (118, 113, 13, 18, 28, 23, 223, 228); the third interval is larger and a length of the handgrip part (2000) on the first direction (along direction Lp).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 11. The combination does not explicitly disclose that the third interval is three times to six times the first interval.
However, the MPEP teaches that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited dimensions would cause the device taught by the combination to behave differently in use, such that one having ordinary skill int eh art would at least reasonably expect that the device taught by Van Eijk and Ericksen would behave in the same manner as the claimed apparatus recited in the claim.
Thus, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Claims 2-3 and 13-15
Claims 2-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0016907 to Frick (hereinafter “Frick”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose a size scale disposed along the second direction and arranged adjacent to the second bores row.
However, it is known in the art of drilling guides to provide size scales on the sides of the guide. For example, Frick teaches such a guide.
Frick teaches a drilling guide (14; see Fig. 2B) including a first side (upper side) and a second side (lower side). The guide (14) includes a plurality of bores (36) adjacent to each of the first side and the second side in two rows (see Annotated Figure; bores disposed in boxed regions). The guide further includes a size scale (34) on the second side adjacent the second bores row. Frick teaches that the scale align such that the scales illustrated (see Fig. 2B) aligns with holes in the bores row (see paragraph [0048]), allowing the use of the scale to determine distances from the bores to be drilled.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of taught by the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen to include additional indicia, such as the scales taught by Frick. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously provide for facilitating a desired alignment with respect to bores in the guide during drilling.
Thus, the combination of Van Eijk, Ericksen, and Frick teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Van Eijk, Ericksen, and Frick teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Frick teaches that the size scale (34) is based on the metric system (see paragraphs [0052] and [0057]; imperial units and metric units can be converted to one another without modification of the principles of operation).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 12. The combination does not explicitly disclose a size scale disposed along the second direction and arranged adjacent to the second bores row.
However, it is known in the art of drilling guides to provide size scales on the sides of the guide. For example, Frick teaches such a guide.
Frick teaches a drilling guide (14; see Fig. 2B) including a first side (upper side) and a second side (lower side). The guide (14) includes a plurality of bores (36) adjacent to each of the first side and the second side in two rows (see Annotated Figure above; bores disposed in boxed regions). The guide further includes a size scale (34) on the second side adjacent the second bores row. Frick teaches that the scale align such that the scales illustrated (see Fig. 2B) aligns with holes in the bores row (see paragraph [0048]), allowing the use of the scale to determine distances from the bores to be drilled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of taught by the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen to include additional indicia, such as the scales taught by Frick. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously provide for facilitating a desired alignment with respect to bores in the guide during drilling.
Thus, the combination of Van Eijk, Ericksen, and Frick teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 13, and further Frick teaches that the size scale (34) is based on the metric system (see paragraphs [0052] and [0057]; imperial units and metric units can be converted to one another without modification of the principles of operation).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Van Eijk and Ericksen teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further Van Eijk discloses that the main body (1) is made of paper (see page 2, lines 12-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 4,969,273 to Richards teaches a drilling guide structure having a foldable portion.
United States Patent 3,039,199 to Maag teaches a drilling guide having a folded portion (3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726