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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moglich, US 10953529.
Applicants’ arguments, regarding the 112B rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moglich, US 10953529.
Regarding claim 1, Moglich discloses: A rotary tool (Figs. 1-6, portable milling device 100) comprising:
a housing (Figs. 1-6, housing 10) including a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-6, “AR”) extending between the first end and the second end;
a drive shaft (Figs. 1-6, spindle 20 and undisclosed shaft that transfers rotational energy from the motor to the spindle) positioned within the housing;
a bit holder (Figs. 1-6, clamping nut 40) positioned adjacent the second end of the housing and driven by the drive shaft;
a wrench assembly (Figs. 1-6, spanner 50) coaxially movable along the longitudinal axis between a first position (Fig. 3, “disengaged position”) and a second position (Fig. “engaged position”), the wrench assembly secured to the housing when in a first position, the wrench assembly engageable with the bit holder when in the second position;
a groove (Figs. 1-6, contact portion 19) positioned on one of the housing and the wrench assembly; and
a protrusion (Figs. 1-6, upper sleeve 70) positioned on the other of the housing and the wrench assembly, wherein
when the wrench assembly is in the first position (Col. 4, line 53 - Col. 6, line 14 describes the interaction of these feature sin order to meet the claim limitation), the protrusion engages the groove and retains the wrench assembly against axial movement, and
when the wrench assembly is in the second position, the protrusion is disengaged from the groove to release the wrench assembly (Col. 4, line 53 - Col. 6, line 14 describes the interaction of these features in order to meet the claim limitation), and
the wrench assembly is configured to move from the first position to the second position, without rotating, by an exerted force that overcomes the frictional engagement between the protrusion and the groove and slides the wrench assembly in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis (See Figs. 3-6, furthermore Col. 4, line 53 - Col. 6, line 14 describes the interaction of these features in order to meet the claim limitation ),.
Regarding claim 4, Moglich further discloses: while the wrench assembly is in the first position, the wrench assembly is disengaged from the bit holder (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Moglich further discloses: a locking structure (Fig. 3, lock openings 180) positioned on the drive shaft, and a lock assembly (Fig. 3, shaft lock assembly 184) engaging the locking structure to prevent rotation of the drive shaft.
Regarding claim 6, Moglich further discloses: the locking structure is movable between a first position (Fig. 3), where the lock assembly engages the locking structure to prevent rotation of the drive shaft, and a second position (Fig. 2), where the lock assembly disengages the locking structure.
Regarding claim 7, Moglich further discloses: the bit holder (Fig. 3, fastening member 172 and collet 168) includes a connection member (Fig. 3, connection member 164) connected to the drive shaft and defining a bore , a collet (Fig. 3, collet 168) positioned within the bore, and a spindle (Fig. 3, fastening member 172) threadably coupled to the connection member
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moglich, US 10953529 in view of Puzio, (US 20220009064).
Regarding claim 2, Moglich discloses the device of claim 2.
Moglich does not explicitly disclose: a light source supported on the housing.
Puzio teaches: a light source supported on the housing (Fig. 1, [0133] - “A light ring 34 can be located on a front portion of the power tool 10 just behind the end effector 20 in a recess 36 in the clutch collar 30”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the design of Moglich with the inclusion of the light source from Puzio, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable and desirable result. The benefit of this inclusion allows for the device to light the work area, thereby increasing the productivity and safety of the operator.
Regarding claim 3, Moglich discloses the device of claim 1.
Moglich does not explicitly disclose: a light source positioned within the housing.
Puzio teaches: a light source positioned within the housing (Fig. 1, [0133] - “A light ring 34 can be located on a front portion of the power tool 10 just behind the end effector 20 in a recess 36 in the clutch collar 30”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the design of Bernardi with the inclusion of the light source from Puzio, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable and desirable result. The benefit of this inclusion allows for the device to light the work area, thereby increasing the productivity and safety of the operator.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights