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 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 (this drill is moved to a desired location of a workpiece for drilling) to a desired location on a work surface of the workpiece, the machine tool assembly defining a proximal end (a power drill) and a distal end (where a bit and a dust collecting attachment or a shield 11 are attached to the power drill) and a gripper attachment (the shield 11, Figures 20, 20A, B having a vacuum hose which can be caused frictionally on the workpiece and considered as a gripper) affixed to the distal end,
the gripper attachment comprising a conformable foam seal (a resilient surface contact rim 211, Figure 20 and Col. 10, lines47-52 “This resilient rim element, which can be suitably fabricated of a rubber material such as urethane, is suitably provided with a grooved top surface 212 for receiving the side wall's down-turned bottom edge 214. 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 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 241 or vacuum hose); 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 Figures 33A, 33B. White the vacuum is activated, the machine too is held against the work surface 431), and
wherein the machine tool assembly comprises a bit clamp (219, Figure 21) configured to selectively receive and secure a working bit of a plurality of working bits (213, 223, 302…), wherein the machine tool assembly further comprises a sleeve (205) attached to the machine tool over the bit clamp (Figure 20), the sleeve providing a clearance fit to permit rotation of the bit clamp (see Figure 20, there is a space for the chuck 219) , and wherein the gripper attachment defines a central bore (Figure 20) extending from a second proximal end of the gripper attachment to a second distal end (see figure 20, there is a central bore of the collection chamber 209 for receiving the chuck and a chuck shank 265), the central bore receiving the sleeve (205) of the machine tool assembly.
If one argues that the resilient surface contact rim 211, Figure 20 and Col. 10, lines47-52 “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 20).
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 ).
If one argues that this 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 20).
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 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 Allan 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 robot, 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 reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
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.
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 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights