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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1-6,11-12,15,19, 35 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 7901164) in view Torem (WO 2019/215722).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a method for performing an operation on a workpiece (see Figure 1), the method comprising:
moving a machine tool assembly (303/305, Figure 24 for drilling. Please note that the embodiment in Figures 27-29 has a vacuum port 357) to a desired location on a work surface of the workpiece (Figures 1A, 1B), the machine tool assembly defining a proximal end (for attaching a power drill 13) and a distal end (for attaching a collecting attachment or a shield 301) and a gripper attachment (301) affixed to the distal end (see Figure 29, the shield is attached to the distal end of a cylinder wall 356 of the machine which has the vacuum port 357 which can be caused frictionally on the workpiece and considered as a gripper), the gripper attachment comprising a conformable foam seal (a resilient surface contact rim 211/319, Col. 10, lines 47-52 “This resilient rim element, which can be suitably fabricated of a rubber material such as urethane,…. The resilient rim will provide sealing contact with the work surface onto which the debris shield is placed, thereby preventing leakage of debris through this contact.”) opposing the work surface (see Figures 1A, 1B, 33A-33B), wherein the conformable foam seal conforms to the worksurface;
activating a vacuum source to draw a vacuum on the work surface through the conformable foam seal and the gripper attachment (see the discussion of a vacuum port or a vacuum hose in the specification); and
vacuum clamping the machine tool assembly to the work surface at the desired location in response to the vacuum drawn on the work surface (see the embodiments in the Figures; white the vacuum is activated, the machine too is intrinsically held against the work surface by suction manner), and
wherein the machine tool assembly comprises a bit clamp (see Figure 29) configured to selectively receive and secure a working bit of a plurality of working bits (123, 213, 221, 223, 302…401), wherein the machine tool assembly further comprises a sleeve (356) attached to the machine tool over the bit clamp (see Figure 29), the sleeve providing a clearance fit to permit rotation of the bit clamp (see Figure 29, there is a space for the chuck or chuck 303, Figure 24), and
wherein the gripper attachment defines a central bore (a chamber of the shield 301, Figure 24) extending from a second proximal end of the gripper attachment to a second distal end (see figure 24, see the chamber extending from the rim 319 to the top edge 313), the central bore receiving the sleeve (303, Figure 24 or 356, Figure 29) of the machine tool assembly.
Thomas also shows that the gripper attachment defines a chip vacuum compartment (the vacuum port 357, Figure 29 that is bult-in the cylinder wall 356 above the shield) is in fluid communication with the central bore.
If one argues that the resilient surface contact rim 211, Figure 20 and Col. 10, lines 47-52 “a rubber material such as urethane” is not conformable foam seal, see Rotem’s Figure 3 shows a vacuum seal 420 that comprises a closed-cell foam material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the resilient surface contact rim of Thomas to have a formable foam seal, as taught by Rotem, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the resilient surface contact rim being made of a material of a formable foam seal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the operation to be performed on the workpiece comprises at least one of drilling a hole (see Thomas’s Figure 29, this bit can be drilled at least one hole).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the workpiece comprises at least one of a composite workpiece (drywall is made of a composite material, see the background “cut in walls and other surfaces”).
If one argues that this wall material is not composite material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try to use the method as taught by Thomas to cut a composite wall (a standard drywall). Since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential options to cut the composite material, which provides the exact same results, a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known potential options for cutting different materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the machine tool assembly comprises at least one of a power drill assembly (Thomas’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the work surface of the workpiece comprises a two-dimensional portion (Thomas’s Figure 1, the workpiece is a two-dimensional portion).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the conformable foam seal comprises at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (see Figure 3 of Rotem).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the gripper attachment defines a seal vacuum compartment in fluid communication with the vacuum source and the conformable foam seal in conjunction with drawing the vacuum on the work surface (see the discussion in claim 1 and see Thomas’s Figure 26-29).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Thomas teaches activating the machine tool assembly and engaging a working bit of the machine tool assembly with the work surface of the workpiece at the desired location (see claim 1 and Figures 1-1A, of Thomas); and performing the operation on the work surface at the desired location using the machine tool assembly and the working bit to change the workpiece (see all figures of Thomas for drilling different holes on different workpieces).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Thomas teaches the vacuum clamping of the machine tool assembly comprising:
positioning the machine tool assembly to a transverse orientation in relation to the desired location on the work surface of the workpiece in response to the vacuum drawn on the work surface (Thomas’s Figure 1); and
securing the machine tool assembly to the work surface in the transverse orientation (Thomas’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method of Thomas teaches that the machine tool assembly comprises a handheld machine tool assembly (see the drill, Thomas’s Figure 1), and
wherein the moving of the machine tool assembly comprises: moving the handheld machine tool assembly to the desired location on the work surface of the workpiece in response to an operator holding and positioning the handheld machine tool assembly to the desired location (see Figure 1 of Thomas), and
wherein the activating of the vacuum source comprises activating the vacuum source in response to the operator turning on the vacuum source to draw the vacuum on the work surface while the operator continues holding the handheld machine tool assembly in position at the desired location (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 35 and 73, the modified method (device) of Thomas shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 7901164) in view Torem (WO 2019/215722) and Li (CN 110842242 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Thomas teaches all of the limitations as stated above except an end effector attached to a robotic arm of an articulated robot
Li shows an end effector 2 attached to a robotic arm 1 of an articulated robot (Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Thomas to have a robot, as taught by Li, in order to eliminate a labor cost and cut holes more precisely.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a robot (instead of a manual operation), since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. In order to improve the drilling mechanism to speedy, accuracy, and efficiency drilling holes.
Doing so, the desired location comprises a predetermined location known to the articulated robot (Li’s Figure 1), and wherein the vacuum clamping of the machine tool assembly comprises: positioning of the robotic arm while the articulated robot is in a hand guiding mode (see Li’s robot); adjusting the machine tool assembly to a transverse orientation in relation to the predetermined location on the work surface; and securing the machine tool assembly to the work surface in the transverse orientation (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims are 21, 23, 26-28, 29, 33 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: claim 21 does not anticipate or render obvious the features of structures of a power drill, a drill bit, a bit clamp, a sleeve attached to the power drill over the bit clamp, the sleeve providing a clearance fit to permit rotation of the bit clamp, and wherein the gripper attachment defines a central bore extending from a second proximal end of the gripper attachment to a second distal end and a chip vacuum compartment in fluid communication with the central bore, the central bore receiving the sleeve of the power drill assembly, the sleeve comprising multiple openings that provide fluid paths to the chip vacuum compartment for debris resulting from the operation performed on the workpiece, and wherein the conformable foam seal defines a hole aligned with the central bore of the gripper attachment to provide a clearance fit for the sleeve, in combination with the limitations as set forth in the independent claim and any intervening claims 1 and 21, 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
See the new ground rejection by a new embodiment above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Danis (FR2936437A1 and Translation) shows a drill having a vacuum port.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 10/9/2026
Prosecution Insights