DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15-19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Otten (PGPub 2004/017524).
Re Claim 15, Otten discloses hand-held machine for removing a friction-welded element, having a head, from a component assembly, wherein the hand-held machine comprises a machine housing and a drive unit which is received therein, wherein, furthermore, an attachment de vice is provided which is connected to the machine housing, wherein the attachment device comprises furthermore, a telescopic element which has a first component 18, arranged free from movement relative to the machine housing, and a second component 19, arranged movably in the axial direction relative to the first component, wherein the second component is prestressed in the axial direction in the pressing direction against the machine housing (Fig. 2-3; para. 24-37), furthermore, the attachment device has a tool drive shaft which is driven via the drive unit, wherein the tool drive shaft is mounted rotationally on the second component by a bearing element 3 and is guided axially movably relative to the second component, wherein the second component has a contact element 12 (Fig. 2-3; para. 24-37), the contact element defines an opening, the opening [corresponds to the cross-sectional shape of the head of the friction-welded element, and the extent of the opening is only slightly larger than the extent of the head of the friction-welded element] (Note that the friction-welded element is not part of the claimed device and thus limitations reciting relationship of the device to the friction-welded element have limited patentable weight), by way of which the second component can be placed onto the component assembly, wherein a machining tool is connected to the tool drive shaft (Fig. 2-3; para. 24-37), wherein, furthermore, a stop 28, by which the drilling depth is limited, acts between the second component and the machine housing (Fig. 2-3; para. 24-37). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the machine, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed. Note that the friction-welded element is not part of the claimed device and thus limitations reciting relationship of the device to the friction-welded element have limited patentable weight.
Re Claim 16, as best understood, Otten discloses the bearing element is a sliding bearing, taking the form of a sliding bearing sleeve (Fig. 2-3).
Re Claim 17, Otten discloses the first component and the second component engage with one another in a guide region, with the bearing element being located between the front end of the contact element and the guide region (Fig. 2-3).
Re Claim 18, Otten discloses the bearing element is of a sleeve-shaped design and has lateral recesses made therein [for chip evacuation] (Fig. 2-3). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 19, Otten discloses the stop is adapted to be varied for adjusting the maximum drilling depth and comprises an adjusting element (Fig. 2-3; para. 37).
Re Claim 25, Otten discloses the first component is located radially inward and the second component is located radially outward (Fig. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Strasser (PGPub 20040215395).
Re Claim 20, Otten does not disclose the stop interacts with a signal unit. However, Strasser teaches a stop interacts with a signal unit (para. 13). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a signal unit, as taught by Strasser, for the purpose of providing a visible cue to a user for optimizing the process.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Thompson (JP 2020142365 A, machine translation relied on)
Re Claims 21-22, 24, Otten discloses the attachment device includes an alignment aid that comprises a display device for positional deviation, the alignment aid comprises at least one accelerometer capable of measuring acceleration about at least two axes, and the display device for positional deviation comprises an electro-optical, the signal unit is an electro-optical display. However, Thompson teaches the attachment device includes an alignment aid that comprises a display device for positional deviation, the alignment aid comprises at least one accelerometer capable of measuring acceleration about at least two axes, and the display device for positional deviation comprises an electro-optical, the signal unit is an electro-optical display (pages 2-3, 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize these features, as taught by Thompson, for the purpose of enabling enhanced control of the drilling process and ensuring the drill is operating effectively and efficiently and enabling monitoring of the angle and positioning of the drill and providing this information to the user.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Kim (WO2013191487, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 23, as best understood, Otten does not disclose an alignment aid that comprises diodes capable of projecting a pattern onto a drilling surface. However, Kim teaches an alignment aid that comprises diodes capable of projecting a pattern onto a drilling surface (Fig. 1-7; pg. 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize diodes capable of projecting a pattern onto a drilling surface, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of ensuring drilling is performed to desired areas and providing visual cues for the user to assist in the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 28 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-10 that the amendment to claim 15 is not taught by the prior art and that the claims are allowable. -In response, note that the friction-welded element is not part of the claimed device and thus limitations reciting relationship of the device to the friction-welded element have limited patentable weight. Examiner suggests incorporating limitations that positively describe the device being claimed and not elements that are not part of the claimed device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights