DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 30 March 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-29 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 30 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant alleges that the identified groups are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided evidence that the identified groups are not, in fact, independent or distinct. The amendment to the claims to depend claims 10-29 from claim 1 does not make the previously identified groupings not independent or distinct.
Applicant separately asserts that Applicant “submits that claims identified in Groups I, II, and III are substantially similar with significant overlap” and “Applicant respectfully submits there would not be a serious burden to examine the claims of Groups I, II, and III together as a group.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mere overlap is not sufficient to obviate a finding of serious search burden. So long as the previously independent and distinct claims would not have been collectively searched, and could not be rejected over identical art as obvious variants, mere overlap between the claims does not materially eliminate the burden the examiner faces when searching hundreds or thousands of additional documents, much less performing the analysis of each claim limitation presented between the distinct groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As the result of the amendments to the claims, each of claims 1-29 will be examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Requirement for Restriction on 30 February 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “which extend outward from upright assembly” at lines 1-2. It appears that there is a missing indirect or direct article between “from” and “upright.”
Claim 15 recites “which extend outward from upright assembly” at lines 1-2. It appears that there is a missing indirect or direct article between “from” and “upright.”
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.
Claims 1-29 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” 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. The term “parallel” is understood do have a specific geometric meaning, and while modification of the term is permitted, the modification must provide reasonable clarity to one having ordinary skill in the art as to what deviations from actually parallel are contemplated by Applicant and would be predictably understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner does not find a specific definition for the term “substantially” nor “substantially parallel” which provides reasonable clarity as to the deviations contemplated at the time of filing.
The term “generally” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally planar” 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. The term “planar” is understood do have a specific geometric meaning “of or lying in a plane,” and while modification of the term is permitted, the modification must provide reasonable clarity to one having ordinary skill in the art as to what deviations from actually planar are contemplated by Applicant and would be predictably understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner does not find a specific definition for the term “generally” nor “generally planar” which provides reasonable clarity as to the deviations contemplated at the time of filing.
Each of claims 2-29 depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the drill guide assembly is adjusted to correspond to a thickness of the workpiece” in lines 3-4. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the workpiece is not positively required as part of the claimed invention. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine whether any aspect of the apparatus has been adjusted with respect to the unclaimed workpiece. Further, the phrase “is adjusted” implies a method step, however claim 1 and thus claim 3 are understood to be directed to an apparatus. There is no method or manipulative step being performed, and cannot be one, such that the limitation is unclear.
Claim 17 recites “typical workpiece thicknesses” at line 2. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine whether a workpiece thickness is “typical,” at least since “typical” or customary use would depend at least on the types of workpieces and the industry of the use.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 20-24, 27 and 29
Claims 1-5, 8, 20-24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0150434 to Sommerfeld et al. (hereinafter “Sommerfeld”).
Regarding claim 1, Sommerfeld discloses a pocket hole jig system (100) for drilling a pocket hole in a workpiece (1204; see Fig. 12A), the system comprising: a base (102); the base having an upper surface (see Fig. 4; unnumbered upper surface including apertures 110 and 108) that forms a generally planar work surface (see Fig. 2); an upright assembly (103); the upright assembly operably connected to the base (102; see paragraph [0031]); a clamping assembly (202); the clamping assembly operably connected to the base (102; see paragraph [0042]); the clamping assembly having a handle assembly (206); the clamping assembly having a workpiece support member (212); a drill guide assembly (104); the drill guide assembly operably connected to the upright assembly (103; see paragraph [0031]); wherein the upright assembly (103) includes a guide (defined by fastener 116; see Figs. 3 and 5); wherein the guide provides a path of travel for the drill guide assembly (104) at an angle downward and forward towards the workpiece support member (see Fig. 3) and upward and away from the workpiece support member (212; see Fig. 5); wherein operation of the clamping assembly causes movement of the workpiece support member (212) in a path substantially parallel (see alternative positions shown in Fig. 2) to the generally planar work surface (top surface of base 102) of the upper surface of the base.
Regarding claim 2, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that a clamping face (vertically planar face of body 104; best seen in Fig. 4) of the drill guide assembly (104) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (212; see paragraph [0042]) are configured to clamp a workpiece (1204) therebetween (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 3, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that a clamping face (vertically planar face of body 104; best seen in Fig. 4) of the drill guide assembly (104) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (212) are configured to clamp a workpiece (1204) therebetween and wherein the drill guide assembly (104) is adjusted to correspond to a thickness of the workpiece (1204; see paragraph [0033], body 104 “can also be any suitable size and shape”).
Regarding claim 4, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the generally planar work surface (upper surface of body 102) of the upper surface of the base (102) is configured to support an end of the workpiece (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 5, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the guide (defined by fastener 116; see Figs. 3 and 5) extends outward (see Figs. 3 and 5) in a generally planar fashion from a rearward side of the upright assembly (103). The examiner notes that the generally planar fashion can be interpreted as extending along a plane through the upright assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the drill guide assembly (defined by fastener 116) is configured to stop at a plurality of predetermined positions along the guide of the upright assembly (compare positions at Figures 3 and 5; stopping is the result of engagement with the spacer 502).
Regarding claim 20, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the workpiece support member (212) moves a predetermined distance between a fully disengaged position (see Fig. 3) and a fully clamped position (see position of member 212 shown in phantom in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that a clamping face (vertically planar face of body 104; best seen in Fig. 4) of the drill guide assembly (104) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (212; see paragraph [0042]) are configured to clamp a workpiece (1204) therebetween (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 22, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that a clamping face (vertically planar face of body 104; best seen in Fig. 4) of the drill guide assembly (104) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (212) are configured to clamp a workpiece (1204) therebetween and wherein the drill guide assembly (104) is adjusted to correspond to a thickness of the workpiece (1204; see paragraph [0033], body 104 “can also be any suitable size and shape”).
Regarding claim 23, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the generally planar work surface (upper surface of body 102) of the upper surface of the base (102) is configured to support an end of the workpiece (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 24, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the guide (defined by fastener 116; see Figs. 3 and 5) extends outward (see Figs. 3 and 5) in a generally planar fashion from a rearward side of the upright assembly (103). The examiner notes that the generally planar fashion can be interpreted as extending along a plane through the upright assembly.
Regarding claim 27, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the drill guide assembly (defined by fastener 116) is configured to stop at a plurality of predetermined positions along the guide of the upright assembly (compare positions at Figures 3 and 5; stopping is the result of engagement with the spacer 502), and wherein the plurality of predetermined positions correspond to predetermined workpiece thicknesses (compare Figures 3 and 5, clamping mechanism 212 shown capable of supporting different thicknesses).
Regarding claim 29, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, and further Sommerfeld discloses that the upright assembly (103) is fixed in place on the base (102).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, 9-19, 25-26, and 28
Claims 6-7, 9-19, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommerfeld as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0087644 to Pelkey (hereinafter “Pelkey”).
Regarding claim 6, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the guide is formed of a pair of rails which extend outward from the upright assembly at opposing sides of the upright assembly. Instead, Sommerfeld teaches a guide which is defined by a fastener 116 (see Figs. 3 and 5).
It is known in the art of pocket hole jig systems having guides formed with rails.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having an upright assembly (28). Pelkey teaches its upright has a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). The guide includes a pair of rails (216) which extend from the upright assembly (28; rails 216 extend from one side of the upright assembly and handle 108 extends from the other, opposite side). The guide allows for selective positioning of drill guides (84, 86) with respect to a workpiece (92) and a base (24) of a pocket hole jig.
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system in a known manner. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, without modification of the principles of operation Sommerfeld.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the drill guide assembly includes an engagement member configured to engage with and slide along the guide of the upright assembly. Sommerfeld’s drill guide assembly (104) travels along the guide (fastener 116), but does not fairly teach that the drill guide assembly slides.
It is known in the art of pocket hole jig systems having guides on which drill guide assembly slide.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having an upright assembly (28). Pelkey teaches its upright has a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). The guide includes a pair of rails (216) which extend from the upright assembly (28; rails 216 extend from one side of the upright assembly and handle 108 extends from the other, opposite side). The guide allows for selective positioning of drill guides (84, 86) by sliding (see paragraph [0058]) along the body of the pocket hole jig. Pelkey teaches that it’s drill guides may be positioned with high precision (see paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system and facilitates high precision placement of the drill guides.. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, providing desirable positioning control as suggested by Pelkey.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the guide includes a plurality of recesses, and wherein the plurality of recess along the guide correspond to predetermined workpiece thicknesses.
However, it is known in the art of pocket jig systems to provide recesses in a guide member corresponding to predetermined workpiece thicknesses.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). Pelkey teaches the guide (216) includes a plurality of recesses (see Fig. 19; gap between interior sides of rails 216). The drill guide portions (84, 86) are positioned on the guide (see Figs. 9, 10, 11) and secured to the guide via the rails and the recesses therebetween.
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system in a known manner. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, without modification of the principles of operation Sommerfeld. The examiner notes that the phrase “the plurality of recesses along the guide correspond to predetermined workpiece thicknesses does not require a direct mathematical correspondence equal to the dimensions of the recesses. The recesses taught by Pelkey may be interpreted as mapping to thicknesses of a workpiece a plurality of step functions.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sommerfeld teaches that operation of handle assembly (206) on the clamping assembly causes movement of the workpiece support member (212) in a path substantially parallel (see alternative positions shown in Fig. 2) to the generally planar work surface (top surface of base 102) of the upper surface of the base. However, Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the drill guide assembly is configured to stop at a plurality of predetermined positions along the guide of the upright assembly.
However, it is known in the art of pocket hole jig systems to provide drill guides configured to stop at a plurality of predetermined positions.
For example, Pelkey teaches a drill guide configured to stop at a plurality of predetermined positions. Pelkey teaches a pocket hole drill guide system (10) having a drill guide assembly (84, 86) positioned on an upright (28) such that the drill guide assembly is secured to the upright via a rail and groove system (see Fig. 3 and 14). The drill guide assembly is limited to a plurality of positions by a securing handle (108) and a groove (112), the handle 108 facilitating control of the position of the drill guides by the user’s hand.
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a drill guide control mechanism such as the drill guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that a clamping face (horizontal surface of guide portions 102; see Fig. 1) of the drill guide assembly (84, 86) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (surface 96 of member 18 in Pelkey) are configured to clamp a workpiece (92) therebetween. In the combination, the clamping body 212 of Sommerfeld would clamp a workpiece against the equivalent drill guide clamping surface.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that a clamping face (horizontal surface of guide portions 102; see Fig. 1) of the drill guide assembly (84, 86) and a clamping face of the workpiece support member (surface 96 of member 18 in Pelkey) are configured to clamp a workpiece (92) therebetween and wherein the drill guide assembly (84, 86) is adjusted to corresponding to a thickness of the workpiece (92; compare Figures 9, 10, 11). In the combination, the clamping body 212 of Sommerfeld would clamp a workpiece against the equivalent drill guide clamping surface.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Sommerfeld teaches that the generally planar work surface of the upper surface (upper surface of base in Fig. 2) of the base (102) is configured to support an end of the workpiece (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that the guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108) extends outward in a generally planar fashion from a rearward side of the upright assembly (28; rails 216 extend from one side of the upright assembly and handle 108 extends from the other, opposite side). The examiner notes that the generally planar fashion can be interpreted as extending along a plane through the upright assembly.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that the guide is formed of a pair of rails (216; see Figs. 14 and 19) which extend outward from the upright assembly at opposing sides of the upright assembly (see Fig. 14; rails appear to extend outwardly from the respective sides with respect to an upright 28).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that the drill guide assembly (84, 86) includes an engagement member (notches 218) configured to engage with and slide along the guide (rails 216) of the upright assembly (28).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that the plurality of predetermined positions correspond to typical workpiece thicknesses (see Figs. 9 and 11, illustrated thicknesses of workpiece 92 presumed to be “typical”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Pelkey teaches that the guide (216) includes a plurality of recesses (see Fig. 19; gap between interior sides of rails 216), and wherein the drill guide assembly (84, 86) is configured to stop at the plurality of recesses (each guide member will stop at the rails).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Sommerfeld teaches that the upright assembly (103) is fixed in place on the base (102).
Regarding claim 25, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the guide is formed of a pair of rails which extend outward from the upright assembly at opposing sides of the upright assembly. Instead, Sommerfeld teaches a guide which is defined by a fastener 116 (see Figs. 3 and 5).
It is known in the art of pocket hole jig systems having guides formed with rails.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having an upright assembly (28). Pelkey teaches its upright has a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). The guide includes a pair of rails (216) which extend from the upright assembly (28; rails 216 extend from one side of the upright assembly and handle 108 extends from the other, opposite side). The guide allows for selective positioning of drill guides (84, 86) with respect to a workpiece (92) and a base (24) of a pocket hole jig.
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system in a known manner. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, without modification of the principles of operation Sommerfeld.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 26, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the drill guide assembly includes an engagement member configured to engage with and slide along the guide of the upright assembly. Sommerfeld’s drill guide assembly (104) travels along the guide (fastener 116), but does not fairly teach that the drill guide assembly slides.
It is known in the art of pocket hole jig systems having guides on which drill guide assemblies slide.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having an upright assembly (28). Pelkey teaches its upright has a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). The guide includes a pair of rails (216) which extend from the upright assembly (28; rails 216 extend from one side of the upright assembly and handle 108 extends from the other, opposite side). The guide allows for selective positioning of drill guides (84, 86) by sliding (see paragraph [0058]) along the body of the pocket hole jig. Pelkey teaches that it’s drill guides may be positioned with high precision (see paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system and facilitates high precision placement of the drill guides.. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, providing desirable positioning control as suggested by Pelkey.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, Sommerfeld discloses the limitations of claim 20, however Sommerfeld does not explicitly disclose that the guide includes a plurality of recesses, and wherein the plurality of recess along the guide correspond to predetermined workpiece thicknesses.
However, it is known in the art of pocket jig systems to provide recesses in a guide member corresponding to predetermined workpiece thicknesses.
For example, Pelkey teaches a pocket jig system (10) having a guide (guide rails 216 and guide handle 108). Pelkey teaches the guide (216) includes a plurality of recesses (see Fig. 19; gap between interior sides of rails 216). The drill guide portions (84, 86) are positioned on the guide (see Figs. 9, 10, 11) and secured to the guide via the rails and the recesses therebetween.
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Sommerfeld to include a another and conventional guide assembly such as the guide assembly taught by Pelkey. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would facilitate predictable and secure positioning of the drill guides with respect to the base in a predictable manner which controls the position of a drill guide assembly with respect to the pocket jig system in a known manner. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide another conventional guide which positions the drill guides in a known manner, without modification of the principles of operation Sommerfeld. The examiner notes that the phrase “the plurality of recesses along the guide correspond to predetermined workpiece thicknesses does not require a direct mathematical correspondence equal to the dimensions of the recesses. The recesses taught by Pelkey may be interpreted as mapping to thicknesses of a workpiece a plurality of step functions.
Thus, the combination of Sommerfeld and Pelkey teaches the limitations of claim 28.
Conclusion
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights