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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “generating, with the electronic controller and using a machine learning control program” should read “generating, with the electronic controller and using the machine learning control program”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-5 are each objected to because of the following informalities: The term “detecting that the abnormality is a low clarity signal” should read “detecting that the abnormality is the low clarity signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “detect that the abnormality is a low clarity signal” should read “detect that the abnormality is the low clarity signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 are each objected to because of the following informalities: The term “the abnormality being a low clarity signal” should read “the abnormality being the low clarity signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting of claim 1 in US Patent Num US12124226B2 in view of Chan et al, US Patent Pub US 20160167186 (hereinafter Chan).
Claim 1 of US Patent Num US12124226B2 fails to specify detecting, with the electronic controller, an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information; and generating, in response to detecting the abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality.
However, Chan teaches detecting, with the electronic controller, an abnormality associated with the bit progress information; and generating, in response to detecting the abnormality associated with the bit progress information, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality. (Chan, para 20, 31, claim 73 - Central processing unit determines that drill bit should not be used/abnormality on work piece based on a detected characteristic of work piece based on characteristics associated with an interaction/”bit progress information” between power tool and work piece, central processing unit can transmit a signal via output to alert a user that drill bit should not be used and/or should be changed.)
US Patent Num US12124226B2 and Chan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by US Patent Num US12124226B2, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
Instant Application
US Patent Num US12124226B2
Claim 1
A method for automatically controlling a step bit operation in a power tool including a step bit, the method comprising:
receiving, with an electronic controller of the power tool, sensor data output by a sensor and indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool;
processing, with the electronic controller, the sensor data using a machine learning control program;
generating, with the electronic controller and using a machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data, wherein the output indicates step bit progress information;
controlling, with the electronic controller, a motor output of the power tool based on the output;
detecting, with the electronic controller, an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information; and
generating, in response to detecting the abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality.
Claim 1
A method for automatically controlling a step bit operation in a power tool including a step bit, the method comprising:
generating, by a sensor of the power tool, sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool;
receiving, by an electronic control assembly of the power tool, the sensor data, the electronic control assembly including an electronic processor and a memory, the memory storing a machine learning control program for execution by the electronic processor;
processing, by the electronic control assembly using the machine learning control program, the sensor data;
generating, by the electronic control assembly using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data, wherein the output indicates step bit progress information; and
controlling, by the electronic control assembly, a motor of the power tool based on the output,
wherein the step bit progress information indicates at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a level of advancement of the step bit into a workpiece relative to an intended step,
an active advancement between steps,
a detected step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece,
a count of steps advanced into the workpiece,
a diameter of a hole drilled into the workpiece,
a depth of the hole drilled into the workpiece by the step bit, and
a confidence value for detecting a step of the step bit in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting of claim 1 in US Patent Num US12124226B2.
Claim 9 of US Patent Num US12124226B2 fails to specify detect an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, and generate, in response to the abnormality being detected, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality.
However, Chan teaches detect an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, and generate, in response to the abnormality being detected, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality. (Chan, para 20, 31, claim 73 - Central processing unit determines that drill bit should not be used/abnormality on work piece based on a detected characteristic of work piece based on characteristics associated with an interaction/”bit progress information” between power tool and work piece, central processing unit can transmit a signal via output to alert a user that drill bit should not be used and/or should be changed.)
US Patent Num US12124226B2 and Chan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by US Patent Num US12124226B2, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
Instant Application
US Patent Num US12124226B2
Claim 12
A power tool for automatically controlling a step bit operation, the power tool comprising:
a housing;
a motor supported by the housing;
a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool; and
an electronic controller configured to:
receive the sensor data,
process, using a machine learning control program, the sensor data,
generate, using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data that indicates step bit progress information of a step bit of the power tool,
control the motor based on the output,
detect an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, and
generate, in response to the abnormality being detected, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality.
Claim 9
A power tool for automatically controlling a step bit operation, the power tool comprising:
a housing;
a motor supported by the housing;
a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool;
a memory; and
an electronic control assembly including an electronic processor connected to the memory, wherein the memory stores a machine learning control program that when executed by the electronic processor configures the electronic control assembly to:
receive the sensor data,
process, using the machine learning control program, the sensor data,
generate, using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data that indicates step bit progress information of a step bit of the power tool, and
control the motor based on the output,
wherein the step bit progress information indicates at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a level of advancement of the step bit into a workpiece relative to an intended step,
an active advancement between steps,
a detected step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece,
a count of steps advanced into the workpiece,
a diameter of a hole drilled into the workpiece,
a depth of the hole drilled into the workpiece by the step bit, and
a confidence value for detecting a step of the step bit in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting of claims 9 and 14 in US Patent Num US12124226B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the described instant application claims are anticipated by the described claims of US12124226B2. The differences between the conflicting claims are minor and do not distinguish the overall appearance of one over the other. These differences include; providing a signal vs send a signal.
Instant Application
US Patent Num US12124226B2
Claim 20
A power tool for automatically controlling a step bit operation, the power tool comprising:
a housing;
a motor supported by the housing;
a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool; and
an electronic controller configured to:
receive the sensor data,
process, using a machine learning control program, the sensor data,
generate, using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data that indicates step bit progress information of a step bit of the power tool,
control the motor based on the output, and
provide an indication using an indicator in order to alert a user, the indication based on at least one selected from the group consisting of:
the step bit progress information,
a quality of signal received from a power tool sensor,
a confidence of an algorithm,
a feedback value based on a forward feed rate,
a feedback value based on a determined force, and
a condition of the step bit.
Claim 9
A power tool for automatically controlling a step bit operation, the power tool comprising:
a housing;
a motor supported by the housing;
a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool;
a memory; and
an electronic control assembly including an electronic processor connected to the memory, wherein the memory stores a machine learning control program that when executed by the electronic processor configures the electronic control assembly to:
receive the sensor data,
process, using the machine learning control program, the sensor data,
generate, using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data that indicates step bit progress information of a step bit of the power tool, and
control the motor based on the output,
wherein the step bit progress information indicates at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a level of advancement of the step bit into a workpiece relative to an intended step,
an active advancement between steps,
a detected step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece,
a count of steps advanced into the workpiece,
a diameter of a hole drilled into the workpiece,
a depth of the hole drilled into the workpiece by the step bit, and
a confidence value for detecting a step of the step bit in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
Claim 14
The method of claim 9, wherein the electronic control assembly is further configured to
send a signal to an indicator of the power tool or an external device to alert a user based on at least one selected from the group consisting of:
the step bit progress information,
an active advancement between steps,
a quality of signal received from a power tool sensor,
a confidence of an algorithm,
a feedback value based on a determined feed rate,
a feedback value based on a determined force, and
a condition of the step bit.
It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacubasch et al, European Patent Num EP1398119B1 (hereinafter Jacubasch) in view of Durfee, US Patent Pub US 20140369776 A1 (hereinafter Durfee), in view of Chan et al, US Patent Pub US 20160167186 (hereinafter Chan)
Claim 1
Jacubasch teaches a method for automatically controlling a step bit operation in a power tool including a bit (Jacubasch, Para 13, 15 - A method for automatically controlling an operation of a rotating bit in a power tool including a rotating bit driven by a motor supported by a housing.), the method comprising: receiving, with an electronic controller of the power tool, sensor data output by a sensor and indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool; processing, with the electronic controller, the sensor data using a machine learning control program (Jacubasch, Para 8-10, 13 - A processing unit/”electronic controller”, that includes an electronic processor and memory storing a program that is needed for operating a neural network/”machine learning control program”, of the power tool that receives the sensor signal/data representative/indicative of an operating condition/”operational parameter” of the power tool.); generating, with the electronic controller and using a machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data, wherein the output indicates bit progress information (Jacubasch, Para 9-10, 13 - The processing unit/”electronic controller” processes the sensor signal/data to generate a set of probability signals/output representing the probability of a blocking event/”bit progress information”.); controlling, with the electronic controller, a motor output of the power tool based on the output. (Jacubasch, Para 7, 13 - - The processing unit/”electronic controller” controls a rotary drive/motor based on the probability signals/output.)
But Jacubasch fails to specify a step bit.
However, Durfee teaches a step bit. (Durfee, Para [0013] - - A step drill bit.)
Jacubasch and Durfee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Durfee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to permit the drilling of multiple different sized holes without changing the bit by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Durfee (Para 2).
But the combination of Jacubasch and Durfee fails to specify detecting, with the electronic controller, an abnormality associated with the step bit progress information; and generating, in response to detecting the abnormality associated with the step bit progress information, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality.
However, Chan teaches detecting, with the electronic controller, an abnormality associated with the bit progress information; and generating, in response to detecting the abnormality associated with the bit progress information, an alert to a user of the power tool indicative of the abnormality. (Chan, para 20, 31, claim 73 - Central processing unit determines that drill bit should not be used/abnormality on work piece based on a detected characteristic of work piece based on characteristics associated with an interaction/”bit progress information” between power tool and work piece, central processing unit can transmit a signal via output to alert a user that drill bit should not be used and/or should be changed.)
Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch and Durfee, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
This rejection also applies to claim 12.
Claim 2
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan further teaches the abnormality includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a feedback value related to a current forward feed rate. (Chan, para 20 – The detected characteristic of work piece based on characteristics associated with feedback from a feed rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
This rejection also applies to claim 13.
Claim 6
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan further teaches the abnormality is detected using a secondary machine learning algorithm. (Jacubasch, Para 8-10, 13 - The processing unit operating a neural network/”secondary machine learning algorithm” that processes the sensor data. The Examiner notes that as claimed, the secondary machine learning algorithm is just replacing the function performed by the machine learning control program, as taught by Jacubasch, to detect the abnormality in combination with the cited teachings of Chan, and does not specify any difference in how the secondary machine learning algorithm is different from and further limiting than the use of the machine learning control program.)
This rejection also applies to claim 18.
Claim 7
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chan further teaches the alert includes an illumination of an indicator of the power tool. (Chan, para 42 - Displaying the recommendation on a user interface.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 20
Jacubasch teaches a power tool for automatically controlling a bit operation, the power tool comprising: a housing; a motor supported by the housing (Jacubasch, Para 13, 15 - A method for automatically controlling an operation of a rotating bit in a power tool including a rotating bit driven by a motor supported by a housing.); a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of an operational parameter of the power tool; and an electronic controller configured to: receive the sensor data, process, using a machine learning control program, the sensor data (Jacubasch, Para 8-10, 13 - A processing unit/”electronic controller”, that includes an electronic processor and memory storing a program that is needed for operating a neural network/”machine learning control program”, of the power tool that receives the sensor signal/data representative/indicative of an operating condition/”operational parameter” of the power tool.), generate, using the machine learning control program, an output based on the sensor data that indicates bit progress information of a bit of the power tool (Jacubasch, Para 9-10, 13 - The processing unit/”electronic controller” processes the sensor signal/data to generate a set of probability signals/output representing the probability of a blocking event/”bit progress information”.), control the motor based on the output. (Jacubasch, Para 7, 13 - - The processing unit/”electronic controller” controls a rotary drive/motor based on the probability signals/output.)
But Jacubasch fails to specify a step bit.
However, Durfee teaches a step bit. (Durfee, Para [0013] - - A step drill bit.)
Jacubasch and Durfee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Durfee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to permit the drilling of multiple different sized holes without changing the bit by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Durfee (Para 2).
But the combination of Jacubasch and Durfee fails to specify provide an indication using an indicator in order to alert a user, the indication based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: the step bit progress information, a quality of signal received from a power tool sensor, a confidence of an algorithm, a feedback value based on a forward feed rate, a feedback value based on a determined force, and a condition of the step bit.
However Chan teaches to provide an indication using an indicator in order to alert a user (Chan, para 42 - Displaying the recommendation/indication on a user interface/indicator.), the indication based on a feedback value based on a forward feed rate, (Chan, para 20 – The detected characteristic of work piece based on characteristics associated with feedback from a feed rate.)
Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch and Durfee, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage or injury by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 27).
Claim(s) 8, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacubasch et al, European Patent Num EP1398119B1 (hereinafter Jacubasch) in view of Durfee, US Patent Pub US 20140369776 A1 (hereinafter Durfee), in view of Chan et al, US Patent Pub US 20160167186 (hereinafter Chan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 17-18, 20 above, and in view of Matsuura et al, US Patent Pub US 20170296204 A1 (hereinafter Matsuura).
Claim 8
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan fails to specify the step bit progress information includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: a level of advancement of the step bit into a workpiece relative to an intended step; an active advancement between steps; a detected step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece; a count of steps advanced into the workpiece; a diameter of a hole drilled into the workpiece; a depth of the hole drilled into the workpiece by the step bit; and a confidence value for detecting a step of the step bit in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
However, Matsuura teaches a depth of the hole drilled into the workpiece by the step bit. (Matsuura, Para 56 - Bit progress information as detected by a sensor indicating the depth of a drill/step bit.)
Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, Durfee, and Chan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Matsuura.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow monitoring and controlling of the drill depth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Matsuura (Para 51).
This same rejection is also applicable to claim 19.
Claim 11
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chan further teaches the intended step is based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: a setting of a clutch ring of the power tool, configuration parameters received from an external device, a setting of a user input mechanism of the power tool, and a selected step bit mode of the power tool. (Chan, para 46 – A user input can be a value associated with a motor speed, a torque, a drill bit size, a grit size, a cutting blade size, a desired hole size, or any other input for controlling power tool.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a desired result in the work piece by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chan (para 46).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacubasch et al, European Patent Num EP1398119B1 (hereinafter Jacubasch) in view of Durfee, US Patent Pub US 20140369776 A1 (hereinafter Durfee), in view of Chan et al, US Patent Pub US 20160167186 (hereinafter Chan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 17-18, 20 above, and in view of Matsuura et al, US Patent Pub US 20170296204 A1 (hereinafter Matsuura) as applied to claims 8, 11, 19 above, and in view of Powell, US Patent Pub US 20030099520 (hereinafter Powell).
Claim 9
The combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura further teaches the intended step is a next step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece or a further step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
However Powell teaches the intended step is a next step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece or a further step in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece. (Powell, para 23 - With advancement to the initial depth, the advancement rate, rotation rate, and additional depth may be specified as a drilling parameter and may be influenced by numerous drilling factors
Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, Matsuura, and Powell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to power drilling tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above power drilling tool, as taught by Jacubasch, Durfee, Chan, and Matsuura, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Powell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide short overall operation time while maintaining hole specification by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Powell (Para 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach detecting that the abnormality is a low clarity signal from the sensor includes determining that a confidence value for detecting a step of the step bit is below a first confidence threshold and above a second confidence threshold, the second confidence threshold being less than the first confidence threshold.
Claim 4 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach slowing, in response to detecting that the abnormality is a low clarity signal from the sensor, the motor output to increase a clarity of the signal.
Claim 5 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach increasing, in response to detecting that the abnormality is a low clarity signal from the sensor, a duration of a motor speed ramp up or ramp down period.
Claim 10 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach detecting, with the electronic controller and using the machine learning control program, that the intended step of the step bit has been reached during drilling by counting a number of steps of the step bit in the advancement of the step bit into the workpiece.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuntze et al, US Patent Pub US 20040049311 A1 relates to claims regarding regulating the operating state of a guided machine tool having a tool rotating at a certain speed during a boring action and monitoring penetration depth.
Guerra et al, WIPO Patent WO2009109673A1 discloses a drilling systems with neural networks, sensors, and a target drilling depth.
Knight et al, US Patent Pub US20130187587 relates to claims regarding power drilling tools with a learning mode to repeat learned tasks, and detecting the drill bit position.
Son et al, US Patent Pub US 20150103449 relates to claims regarding adjusting a motor speed based on sensor detection of an abnormality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights