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 § 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dils (US 7217069) in view of Sergyeynko (US 10870195).
Regarding Claim 1, Dils Figure 14 discloses an accessory mounting platform (30) for a tool, the accessory mounting platform comprising a body configured to be removably coupled to the tool (Col. 6 Lines 26-33) with a first rail coupled to the body (312, 314 – complementary engagement member such a tongue portion for tongue and groove engagement member).
While Dils discloses that the complementary engagement member is used for the removable attachment of an object sensor (60) as the tool accessory, Dils does not disclose a first rail comprising a rail head configured to slidably receive an accessory and couple the accessory to the tool and a locking component configured to selectively retain the accessory on the first rail, wherein the locking component automatically moves from a locked state to an unlocked state when the accessory is slid along the first rail over the locking component in a first direction, and wherein the locking component automatically moves to the locked state once the accessory reaches a locked position on the first rail.
Sergyeynko discloses a similar storage container (201) having a rails (211) to couple the container to a tool (50) and a locking component (240) as a spring finger with an engagement portion (241) which would automatically latch within a corresponding receiving portion (246) locking the storage component once the accessory reaches a locked position on the rail (Col. 6 Lines 52-64). Dils and Sergyeynko are analogous inventions in the art of latching engagement means for tool-mounted accessories.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tongue and groove attachment means of Dils with the spring-biased automatic latch of Sergyeynko in order to hold the attachment in place while being able to remove the storage container by overcoming the force of the engagement portion 241 (Col. 6 Line 65-Col. 7 Line 3).
Regarding Claim 3, while Dils and Sergyeynko do not disclose a second rail coupled to the body, the second rail comprising a rail head configured to slidably receive the accessory, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the attachment means may be duplicated as an obvious variation in the duplication of parts that would provide only expected results in doubling the number of accessories that may be attached to the attachment body. Please see MPEP 2144.04 VI Section B. Also note the U-shape construction shown in Dils Figure 5 with locations for attaching tool bit (40) with identical recess 38 as discussed in Col. 5 Lines 17-24. These tool bit holding recesses on the U-shaped body may be modified to tongue-and-groove attachment as an obvious variation in holding multiple accessories.
Regarding Claim 8, Dils discloses the accessory is an object sensor (60) that may include other features such as a level (52), light (162), and speaker (164) and may further comprise a bit holder (38). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that different accessories may be used with the attachment means, each having a different functionality based on the type of accessory used, including the storage means disclosed in Sergyeynko as an obvious substitution of different tool accessories to be releasably attached to the tool.
Regarding Claim 9, as discussed above, Dils discloses an object sensor body in Figures 4 and 5 which comprises a U-shape that is configured to fit around a portion of the tool. This U-shaped body may be modified to have the tongue and groove attachment means shown in Figure 13 at the locations of the bit-holder recess to removably attach different objects on either side of the tool body.
Regarding Claim 10, Dils discloses the accessory mounting platform is compatible with a plurality of different types of tools, including power tools.
Regarding Claim 11, Dils in view of Sergyeynko discloses a tool comprising: a tool body; a working element coupled to the tool body; an accessory mounting platform comprising: a body coupled to the tool body; a first rail coupled to the body; and a locking component having a locked state and an unlocked state; and an accessory removably coupled to the first rail of the accessory mounting platform, wherein the locking component automatically moves from a locked state to an unlocked state when the accessory is slid along the first rail over the locking component in a first direction, and wherein the locking component automatically moves to the locked state once the accessory reaches a locked position on the first rail.
As discussed above, while Dils and Sergyeynko do not disclose the accessory is selectable from a plurality of accessories each having a different functionality, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that various sensors and storage means may be removably attached to the tool based on the teachings of Dils and Sergyeynko which discloses various functionalities as part of the object sensor and tool storage means attachable to a tool body.
Regarding Claim 12, Dils discloses the tool body comprises a handle (20) and a battery (26) wherein in the embodiment of Figures 4 and 5 the object sensor (60) is disposed between the handle and the battery receiving area. This may be modified to be an accessory mounting platform as discussed above to further removably attach the removable attachment member (30) with a tray (300). In the embodiment of Dils Figure 13, the sensor mounting means is disclosed to be attached at the foot portion (23) of the drill housing (Col. 6 Line 31).
Regarding Claim 13, Dils discloses the accessory is reconfigurable between an in-use position and a stored position when the accessory is coupled to the first rail.
Regarding Claim 14, the alternate configuration of the object sensor (30) of Dils in Figures 4 and 5 may be modified to have the tongue and groove attachment means as seen in Figure 13 as an obvious variation in the duplication of parts that would have only expected results of allowing the attachment of accessories on either side of the mount platform.
Regarding Claim 17, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the disclosures of Dils and Sergyeynko a method of coupling an accessory to a tool, the method comprising: aligning the accessory with a rail of an accessory mounting platform coupled to the tool; and translating the accessory along the rail in a first direction until the accessory contacts a stop feature, wherein a locking component automatically locks the accessory to the rail when the accessory contacts the stop feature as the operation of removable attaching an accessory to a tool mounted platform.
Regarding Claim 18, the spring arm of Sergyeynko operates by translating the accessory along the rail which causes an arm of the locking component to deflect, and wherein automatic locking the accessory to the rail occurs when a tab coupled to the arm of the locking component is clear of the accessory within the recess.
Regarding Claim 19, prior to aligning the accessory with the rail, a user would be required to select the accessory from a plurality of accessories each having a different functionality.
Regarding Claim 20, Dils discloses the attachment member (30) detachably couples the accessory mounting platform to the tool at the foot end of the tool (Col. 6 Lines 26-34).
Claims 2, 4-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Dils (US 7217069) in view of Sergyeynko (US 10870195) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ambal (US 4673070).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Dils discloses the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. While Sergyeynko discloses rails (211) and a spring arm (240) with a tab (241) disposed on the arm adjacent to the distal end of the arm wherein the tab is configured to interface with the tool, the construction of the accessory of Sergyeynko does not disclose the arm is integral with the first rail.
Ambal discloses a similar mounting means having a connecting piece (4) with an arm (8) wherein the rail head is unitary with the rail body and the locking component is disposed on the rail head. Modified Dils and Ambal are analogous inventions in the art of removably connectable accessories and storage containers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding locking component of Sergyeynko with the integral arm and rail of Ambal in order to allow a user to provide a flexible tongue (7) which is moved to unlock the tab and detach the connections (Col. 2 Lines 8-16).
Please also note the integral tongue construction of Lange (US 3631572) Element 14 with nose 13.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Ambal discloses the locking component comprises: an arm including a proximal end and a distal end; and a tab disposed on the arm adjacent to the distal end of the arm, wherein a proximal end of the arm is integral with the first rail, and wherein the tab is configured to interface with the accessory to selectively lock the accessory to the first rail.
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Ambal discloses the tab defines a locking surface and an unlocking surface, and wherein a first ramp angle of the locking surface is different than a second ramp angle of the unlocking surface.
Regarding Claim 6, Ambal discloses the first ramp angle is greater than the second ramp angle.
Regarding Claim 7, Ambal discloses a peak force required to install the accessory on the first rail is less than a peak force required to remove the accessory from the first rail once the locking arm is moved by a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note Cho (US 2015/0167219) and Baber (US 2007/0065246) Element 206.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736