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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in the elevated” after the second comma seems to be missing the word “wherein” at the start. While not required for claim interpretation, it may help with clarity of the claim. This change is suggested.
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 1, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Peplow (US 2587520).
Regarding claim 1, Morissette teaches
A tool positioner (Figure 1, drill positioner 100; Paragraph 0057)
for a chipping or drilling tool (drilling tool shown including drill head 130 and drill bit 131, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0059)
having a tool axis, comprising (A tool axis is implied):
a base frame (Figure 1A, coupling mount 118; Paragraph 0058, coupling assembly 116 releasably rotatably interlocks with a complementary rotatable coupling mount 118 over a platform 120 movably carried over ground by two pairs of corner casters 122);
a mast extending upwardly from the base frame (Figure 1, boom lower arm 108; Paragraph 0057, A coupling assembly 116 is mounted to the bottom end of lower arm 108),
the mast rotatable about a mast axis (Figure 1A, boom lower arm 108 and couplings 116 and 118; Paragraph 0058, Couplings 116, 118, enable rotation of the boom lower arm 108 about a vertical axis);
a tool arm extending from the lateral displacement member (Figure 9, L-shape frame 190; Paragraph 0064, A L-shape frame 190 is further provided, defining two legs 192, 194, with a cylindroid socket 196, 198, carried at opposite ends thereof, respectively),
the tool arm being articulated via a first joint (Figure 9, metallic circular disk drum 188; Paragraph 0064, A metallic circular disk drum 188 is mounted transversely to axis 186 intermediate shaft 182 and shaft extension 186)
between a first member (Figure 10, intermediate shaft 182; Paragraph 0064, A metallic circular disk drum 188 is mounted transversely to axis 186 intermediate shaft 182 and shaft extension 186)
and a second member (Figure 10, shaft extension 186; Paragraph 0064, A metallic circular disk drum 188 is mounted transversely to axis 186 intermediate shaft 182 and shaft extension 186);
and a tool support (Figure 10, T-shape connector 230; Paragraph 0067, T-shape connector 230)
pivotally mounted to the tool arm (Figure 10, see T-shape connector 230, turret 104, L-shape frame 190, and arrow B; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B))
via a second joint (Figure 10, brake disk platform 200 and arrow B; Paragraph 0064, A sector shape metallic disk drum 200 is also provided; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B)),
the tool support adapted to receive the chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0067, T-shape connector 230 includes a foot 230A, with two pairs of bolts 232 (see FIG. 28) for fixedly anchoring into complementary threaded bores 234 in platform 200, and an enlarged head 230B with three pairs of ovoidal slots 236 for interlock with bolts 238 (see FIG. 28) transversely projecting from the main frame of turret 104).
Morissette fails to fully teach a carriage engaged with the mast and displaceable relative to the mast along the mast axis and a lateral displacement member engaged with the carriage and displaceable relative to the carriage along a transverse axis. While Morissette does teach of a pivotable arm between the boom lower arm and L-shape frame, this arm does not include any lateral translation elements.
However, Peplow teaches
a carriage engaged with the mast (Figure 1, block 14; Column 1, Lines 43-44, Formed as part of this block 12 and movable therewith is a block 14)
and displaceable relative to the mast along the mast axis (Figure 1, block 14; Column 1, Lines 43-44, Formed as part of this block 12 and movable therewith is a block 14; Column 2, Lines 26-29, adjusting the block 12 relative to the shaft 10 the tool carriage may be adjusted vertically with respect to the work plate 11);
a lateral displacement member engaged with the carriage (Figure 1, horizontally extending shaft 15; Column 1, Lines 45-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16)
and displaceable relative to the carriage along a transverse axis (Column 2, Lines 32-35, By moving the shaft 15 relative to the block 14 the work carriage 18 may be adjusted longitudinally with respect to the work table 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a block displaceable relative to a mast and a horizontally extending shaft held by a carriage and displaceable along a horizontal axis, as taught by Peplow, intermediate the boom lower arm and the L-shape frame of Morissette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to make the tool easily movable relative to a frame (Peplow Column 1, Lines 1-10, This invention relates to certain new and useful improvements in adjustable power-driven tool supporters, and has for its principal object the provision of an improved construction of a device of this character for supporting the tool in various angular positions and in spaced relation with respect to a work table whereby the tool may be easily manipulated in various angular positions with respect to work supported by the table).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peplow to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings above for claim 1, Morissette further teaches
wherein the first joint defines a first pivot axis (Figure 10, horizontal pivot axis 186 and arrow A; Paragraph 0068, The two arrows in each of FIGS. 10 to 16 suggest pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B), for two axes tilting turret motion about L-shape frame 190),
the second joint defines a second pivot axis (Figure 10, vertical pivot axis 198 and arrow B; Paragraph 0068, The two arrows in each of FIGS. 10 to 16 suggest pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B), for two axes tilting turret motion about L-shape frame 190),
and the tool support defines a position and an orientation of the tool axis (Figure 10, see T-shape connector 230 and turret 4; It is implied that the tool would be mounted in-line where the turret is present thus defining the tool axis along the same direction and relative horizontal and vertical position),
and wherein the tool axis intersects with at least one of: the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis (Figure 10, see horizontal pivot axis 186, vertical pivot axis 198, and turret 104).
See the annotated image of Morissette figure 10 below for a visual representation of Morissette’s teaching.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teachings above for claim 6, Morissette further teaches
wherein the tool axis intersects with both the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis (Figure 10, see horizontal pivot axis 186, vertical pivot axis 198, and turret 104).
For a visual representation, see annotated image of Morrissette figure 10 above.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings above for claim 1, Morissette further teaches
wherein the tool support includes a fixed member (Figure 26, turret 104; Paragraph 0067, an intermediate section of turret 104, shown in phantom lines for clarity of the view, can be transversely supported in operative condition by brake disk platform 200 fixedly via a T-shape connector 230),
a tool carriage displaceable along a tool axis relative to the fixed member (Figure 26, sliding carriage 128; Paragraph 0059, Elongated turret 104 includes a pair of lengthwise rails 124, 126, slidingly carrying a carriage 128 for supporting a drill head 130),
and an actuator operable to displace the tool carriage along the tool axis (Figure 26, pneumatic cylinder 330; Paragraph 0077, use of sliding carriage 128 system whose movement is generated by a pneumatic cylinder 330. Elongated slider carriage 128 provides the elongated runs required for implementing the rock drilling operation).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the teachings above for claim 10, Morissette further teaches
further comprising a control unit (Paragraph 0092, The control system of control box 134 incorporates the “interlock” principles between the movement of the drill carriage 128 and the pivoting of the boom arms 108, 110)
including a pressure regulation valve (Paragraph 0118, A second valve 502 identified by DRILL CARRIAGE allows the slider carriage 128 to move forward on the rails 124, 126, parallel to the insertion of the drill bit 131 into the rock wall)
configured to select a mode of operation between a low pressure mode and a high pressure mode, wherein in the low pressure mode, a pneumatic pressure delivered to the actuator is lower than a pneumatic pressure delivered to the actuator in the high pressure mode (Paragraph 0118, An advantage of the use of valves of the type “ball valve and directional” is that they allow us to modulate the effect of each of them. It is therefore possible to adjust independently the water supply, the speed of rotation of the bit and the travel speed of the carriage 128 as required, independently of one another; It is implied that, because the valves allow adjustment of the travel speed of the carriage, they allow multiple pressure values).
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Knight (US 20170326722).
Regarding claim 12, Morissette teaches
A tool positioner (Figure 1, drill positioner 100; Paragraph 0057),
for a chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0057, drill positioner 100)
having a tool axis, comprising (A tool axis is implied):
a frame (Figure 1, drill positioner 100; Paragraph 0057, Drill positioner 100 shown in FIGS. 1 to 28 consists of an articulated mast or boom 102, a first embodiment of turret 104 and a two axes joint assembly 106 interconnecting an intermediate section of the turret with the outer end of the boom);
a tool support configured for coupling the chipping or drilling tool to the tool positioner (Figure 1, carriage 128; Paragraph 0059, Elongated turret 104 includes a pair of lengthwise rails 124, 126, slidingly carrying a carriage 128 for supporting a drill head),
the tool support mounted to the frame via a first joint (Figure 1, carriage 128 and turret 104; Figure 10, metallic circular disk drum 188 and turret 108; Paragraph 0059, Elongated turret 104 includes a pair of lengthwise rails 124, 126, slidingly carrying a carriage 128 for supporting a drill head; Paragraph 0064, A metallic circular disk drum 188 is mounted transversely to axis 186 intermediate shaft 182 and shaft extension 186)
having a first pivot axis (Figure 10, see turret 104, horizontal pivot axis 186, and arrow A; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B))
and a second joint (Figure 10, brake disk platform 200; Paragraph 0064, A sector shape metallic disk drum 200 is also provided; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B))
having a second pivot axis (Figure 10, see turret 104, vertical pivot axis 198, and arrow B; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B)),
the first pivot axis, the second pivot axis and the tool axis intersecting each other at a common point (Figure 10, see horizontal pivot axis 186, vertical pivot axis 198, and turret 104),
the first joint and the second joint allowing angular movements of the chipping or drilling tool at least about the respective first pivot axis and the second pivot axis (Figure 10, see turret 104, and arrows A and B; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B)),
the tool support further displaceable relative to the frame to enable a plurality of degrees of freedom in translation of the tool support (Paragraph 0094, carriage 128 slidingly forwardly and backwardly along turret 104);
For the limitation of the first pivot axis, the second pivot axis and the tool axis intersecting each other at a common point, see the annotated image of Morissette figure 10 above for a visual representation.
Morissette fails to fully teach an automated locking system operable to restrict and allow the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation of the tool support. While it does teach of a locking system control through a brake means (Paragraph 0009, a releasable brake means releasably locks said cradle member at a selected pivoted and tilted orientation of said turret), this system is not automated to activate upon tool activation.
However, Knight teaches
and an automated locking system operable to restrict and allow the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation of the tool support (Paragraph 0038, Activation of the torque tool locks the first joint and the second joint to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis and after deactivation of the torque tool the first joint and the second joint are unlocked to enable rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an automated locking system for multiple joints that locks when a tool is activated, as taught by Knight, to the brake means of Morissette. One would be motivated to make these changes as a means to prevent movement of a tool when activated (Knight Paragraph 0008; first joint means for rotatably joining the torque limiter connection member to the tool connection member to permit the torque tool to rotate about a first axis relative to the torque limiter device when the torque tool is not activated and to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis when the torque tool is activated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Knight as seen above.
Morissette fails to fully teach wherein the automated locking system is operable simultaneously upon actuation of the chipping or drilling tool. While it does teach a locking system operable by a release brake means, this system does not active simultaneously with actuation of a tool.
However, Knight teaches
wherein the automated locking system is operable simultaneously upon actuation of the chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0038, Activation of the torque tool locks the first joint and the second joint to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis and after deactivation of the torque tool the first joint and the second joint are unlocked to enable rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an automated locking system for multiple joints that locks when a tool is activated, as taught by Knight, to the brake means of Morissette. One would be motivated to make these changes as a means to prevent movement of a tool when activated (Knight Paragraph 0008; first joint means for rotatably joining the torque limiter connection member to the tool connection member to permit the torque tool to rotate about a first axis relative to the torque limiter device when the torque tool is not activated and to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis when the torque tool is activated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the teachings above for claim 12, Morissette further teaches
wherein the angular movement about the first pivot axis varies a pitch angle of the tool axis (Figure 10, see turret 104, horizontal pivot axis 186, and arrow A; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B))
and the angular movement about the second pivot axis varies a yaw angle of the tool axis (Figure 10, see turret 104, vertical pivot axis 198, and arrow B; Paragraph 0068, pivotal capability of turret 104 about horizontal pivot axis 186 (arrow A) and about vertical pivotal axis 198 (arrow B)).
Regarding claim 20, Morissette teaches
A method for operating a tool positioner (Paragraph 0119, The operator positions the drill head 130 to the desired location)
for a chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0057, drill positioner 100)
having a tool axis (A tool axis is implied),
the tool positioner having a frame (Figure 1, drill positioner 100; Paragraph 0057, Drill positioner 100 shown in FIGS. 1 to 28 consists of an articulated mast or boom 102, a first embodiment of turret 104 and a two axes joint assembly 106 interconnecting an intermediate section of the turret with the outer end of the boom)
and a tool support (Figure 1, carriage 128; Paragraph 0059, Elongated turret 104 includes a pair of lengthwise rails 124, 126, slidingly carrying a carriage 128 for supporting a drill head),
the method comprising:
positioning the chipping or drilling tool relative to a working surface (Paragraph 0119, The operator positions the drill head 130 to the desired location),
including:
actuating a weight compensation system (Paragraph 0119, the operator releases the brake and then manually orients the drill head 130, in an effortless way since its weight is neutralized)
to move the tool support in translation relative to the frame along a first axis; moving the tool support in translation relative to the frame along a second axis transverse to the first axis (Figure 1, see lower arm 108, upper arm 110, pivot 112, pivot 115, and carriage 128; Paragraph 0119, this operation controls the deployment of two articulated arms 110, 108; It is implied that, in combination, the rotation of these arms 108 and 110 about the given pivot points 112 and 115 allows the translation of the carriage 128 in a vertical direction, aligned with lower arm 108 in figure, and in a horizontal direction, aligned with upper arm 110 in figure 1);
and angularly displacing the tool support to cause a variation of at least one of a pitch angle and a yaw angle of the chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0119, in the suitable orientation and locks at the selected angle while activating the brake means 188, 200, 212, 214 of the first embodiment of turret 104).
Morissette fails to fully teach activating an automated locking system to prevent any further movements along the first axis and the second axis to restrict a first degree of freedom in translation and a second degree of freedom in translation of the chipping or drilling tool prior to or simultaneously with initiating drilling or chipping. While it does teach using a controls to lock the pivotal action of the system (Paragraph 0119, First with the “joystick” of control box 134 and/or by pressing the switch that unlocks the pivotal action of the boom 102), it does not teach wherein this locking is automated with or before activation of the tool.
However, Knight teaches
and activating an automated locking system to prevent any further movements along the first axis and the second axis to restrict a first degree of freedom in translation and a second degree of freedom in translation of the chipping or drilling tool prior to or simultaneously with initiating drilling or chipping (Paragraph 0038, Activation of the torque tool locks the first joint and the second joint to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis and after deactivation of the torque tool the first joint and the second joint are unlocked to enable rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an automated locking system for multiple joints that locks when a tool is activated, as taught by Knight, to the control system of Morissette. One would be motivated to make these changes as a means to prevent movement of a tool when activated (Knight Paragraph 0008; first joint means for rotatably joining the torque limiter connection member to the tool connection member to permit the torque tool to rotate about a first axis relative to the torque limiter device when the torque tool is not activated and to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis when the torque tool is activated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Peplow (US 2587520) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knight (US 20170326722).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is fully taught by Morissette in view of Peplow as seen above.
Morissette and Peplow fail to fully teach an automated locking system operable to selectively restrict and enable multiple degrees of freedom of the tool support, the automated locking system configured for preventing a relative movement between the mast, the carriage and the lateral displacement member, the automated locking system activated upon actuation of the chipping or drilling tool.
While Morissette does teach a means to selectively restrict and enable multiple degrees of freedom of the tool support (Figure 9, brake means 188, 200, 212, and 214; Paragraph 0079, When turret orientation has been manually selected, brake means 188, 200, 212, 214 lock the turret main body 105 to maintain same in its selected orientation; Paragraph 0064, The pistons 224 of caliper brakes 212, 214 are power operated via hydraulic lines from the hydraulic and pneumatic lines 135) this means is not automated upon activation of the chipping or drilling tool.
While Peplow does teach a means for preventing a relative movement between the mast, the carriage and the lateral displacement member (Figure 2, set screws 13 and 16; Column 1, Lines 41- 42, This block 12 is secured in an adjusted position upon the shaft 10 by means of set screws 13; Column 1, Lines 44-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16), this means is not automated upon activation of the chipping or drilling tool.
However, Knight teaches
an automated locking system (Paragraph 0063, Rod actuators 52, 66, 352 and 366 may comprise solenoids which cause the rod to extend or retract upon application of electrical power or, as discussed above, may comprise pneumatic actuators which cause the rod to extend or retract upon application of pneumatic pressure. In both cases a control signal from a controller, processing device or other control device may cause the provision of electrical or pneumatic power to the rod actuator to unlock the joint in the normally locked configuration)
activated upon actuation of the chipping or drilling tool (Paragraph 0038, Activation of the torque tool locks the first joint and the second joint to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis and after deactivation of the torque tool the first joint and the second joint are unlocked to enable rotation of the torque tool about the first axis and the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the brake means of Morissette and apply it to blocks and a shaft, as taught by Peplow. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an automated locking system for multiple joints that locks when a tool is activated, as taught by Knight, to the brake means of Morissette. One would be motivated to make these changes as a means of holding parts in adjusted positions (Peplow Column 2, Lines 50-51, I employ set screws for holding the parts in adjusted positions) and prevent movement of a tool when activated (Knight Paragraph 0008; first joint means for rotatably joining the torque limiter connection member to the tool connection member to permit the torque tool to rotate about a first axis relative to the torque limiter device when the torque tool is not activated and to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis when the torque tool is activated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peplow and Knight to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings above for claim 2, Morissette further teaches
wherein the automated locking system includes a caliper (Figure 9, caliper brake member 212; Paragraph 0064, First caliper brake member 212 includes a jaw recess 222 sized and shaped for releasable transverse engagement by a peripheral edge portion of circular brake disk 188)
and a disc rotatable relative to the caliper (Figure 9, circular brake disk 188; Paragraph 0064, First caliper brake member 212 includes a jaw recess 222 sized and shaped for releasable transverse engagement by a peripheral edge portion of circular brake disk 188),
wherein the caliper pinches the disc upon actuation of the caliper to lock rotation (Paragraph 0065, a piston member (not illustrated) projects through other caliper brake jaw recess 222 from the main body of caliper brake 212 to releasably frictionally interlock with the brake disk 188)
of the mast about the mast axis (Paragraph 0058, coupling assembly 116 releasably rotatably interlocks with a complementary rotatable coupling mount 118 over a platform 120 movably carried over ground by two pairs of corner casters 122. Couplings 116, 118, enable rotation of the boom lower arm 108 about a vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the couplings for the boom lower arm with a brake means consisting of a caliper and disc as taught by Morissette. This substitution would have been obvious as Morissette teaches the use of a locking brake system to allow rotation about an axis. This substitution would still allow rotation of the boom lower arm and thus has no effect on the limitations of parent claims. This change would have also been predictable as each component would perform the same independently as they do combined. For more information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 is taught by Morissette in view of Peplow and Knight as seen above.
Morissette fails to fully teach wherein the automated locking system includes a clamp mounted to the carriage, the clamp, in an active position, engaging with the lateral displacement member to prevent movement of the lateral displacement member relative to the carriage.
However, Peplow teaches a clamp mounted to the carriage, the clamp, in an active position, engaging with the lateral displacement member to prevent movement of the lateral displacement member relative to the carriage (Figure 2, set screws 13 and 16; Column 1, Lines 44-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16).
Peplow fails to fully teach an automated locking system.
However, Knight teaches an automated locking system as seen above for claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use set screws or similar fasteners, as taught by Peplow, with an automated locking system, as taught by Knight, to the system of Morissette. One would be motivated to make these changes as a means of holding parts in adjusted positions (Peplow Column 2, Lines 50-51, I employ set screws for holding the parts in adjusted positions) and prevent movement of a tool when activated (Knight Paragraph 0008; first joint means for rotatably joining the torque limiter connection member to the tool connection member to permit the torque tool to rotate about a first axis relative to the torque limiter device when the torque tool is not activated and to prevent rotation of the torque tool about the first axis when the torque tool is activated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peplow and Knight to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Knight (US 20170326722) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Peplow (US 2587520).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the teachings for claim 12 as seen above, Morissette further teaches
wherein the frame includes a mast (Figure 1, boom lower arm 108; Paragraph 0057, A coupling assembly 116 is mounted to the bottom end of lower arm 108)
having a mast axis extending generally vertically (Figure 1A, boom lower arm 108 and couplings 116 and 118; Paragraph 0058, Couplings 116, 118, enable rotation of the boom lower arm 108 about a vertical axis),
Morissette fails to fully teach a lateral displacement member displaceable along the mast axis to displace the tool support in translation there along to allow a first one of the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation. While Morissette does teach of a pivotable arm between the boom lower arm and turret, this arm does not include any lateral translation elements.
However, Peplow teaches
and a lateral displacement member (Figure 1, horizontally extending shaft 15; Column 1, Lines 45-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16)
displaceable along the mast axis to displace the tool support in translation there along to allow a first one of the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation (Figure 1, block 14 and shaft 15; Column 1, Lines 43-44, Formed as part of this block 12 and movable therewith is a block 14; Column 2, Lines 26-29, adjusting the block 12 relative to the shaft 10 the tool carriage may be adjusted vertically with respect to the work plate 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a horizontally extending shaft displaceable along a vertical axis through use of a block on a vertical shaft, as taught by Peplow, intermediate the boom lower arm and the turret of Morissette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to make the tool easily movable (Peplow Column 1, Lines 1-10, This invention relates to certain new and useful improvements in adjustable power-driven tool supporters, and has for its principal object the provision of an improved construction of a device of this character for supporting the tool in various angular positions and in spaced relation with respect to a work table whereby the tool may be easily manipulated in various angular positions with respect to work supported by the table).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight and Peplow to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Knight and Peplow as seen above.
Morissette fails to fully teach wherein the lateral displacement member is further displaceable relative to the mast along a transverse axis, the transverse axis extending transversely relative to the mast axis to enable a second one of the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation of the tool support. While Morissette does teach of a pivotable arm between the boom lower arm and turret, this arm does not include any lateral translation elements.
However, Peplow further teaches
wherein the lateral displacement member is further displaceable relative to the mast along a transverse axis, the transverse axis extending transversely relative to the mast axis to enable a second one of the plurality of degrees of freedom in translation of the tool support (Column 2, Lines 32-35, By moving the shaft 15 relative to the block 14 the work carriage 18 may be adjusted longitudinally with respect to the work table 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a horizontally extending shaft displaceable in along a horizontal axis, as taught by Peplow, intermediate the boom lower arm and the turret of Morissette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to make the tool easily movable (Peplow Column 1, Lines 1-10, This invention relates to certain new and useful improvements in adjustable power-driven tool supporters, and has for its principal object the provision of an improved construction of a device of this character for supporting the tool in various angular positions and in spaced relation with respect to a work table whereby the tool may be easily manipulated in various angular positions with respect to work supported by the table).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight and Peplow to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the teachings above for claim 15, Morissette further teaches
wherein the mast is rotatable relative to the mast axis (Figure 1A, boom lower arm 108 and couplings 116 and 118; Paragraph 0058, Couplings 116, 118, enable rotation of the boom lower arm 108 about a vertical axis)
whereby a rotation of the mast causes a displacement of the tool support in a transverse direction relative to the mast axis (Figure 1, see boom lower arm 108 and carriage 128; Based on the figure, it is implied a rotation of boom lower arm 108 about a vertical axis would move the carriage 128 in translation).
Regarding claim 18, claim 15 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Knight and Peplow as seen above.
Morrissette fails to fully teach wherein the frame includes a carriage engaged to the mast and displaceable relative thereto along the mast axis, the carriage supporting the lateral displacement member.
However, Peplow further teaches
wherein the frame includes a carriage engaged to the mast (Figure 1, block 14; Column 1, Lines 43-44, Formed as part of this block 12 and movable therewith is a block 14)
and displaceable relative thereto along the mast axis (Figure 1, block 14; Column 1, Lines 43-44, Formed as part of this block 12 and movable therewith is a block 14; Column 2, Lines 26-29, adjusting the block 12 relative to the shaft 10 the tool carriage may be adjusted vertically with respect to the work plate 11),
the carriage supporting the lateral displacement member (Figure 1, horizontally extending shaft 15; Column 1, Lines 45-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carriage to hold a horizontally extending shaft, as taught by Peplow, intermediate the boom lower arm and the turret of Morissette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to make the tool easily movable (Peplow Column 1, Lines 1-10, This invention relates to certain new and useful improvements in adjustable power-driven tool supporters, and has for its principal object the provision of an improved construction of a device of this character for supporting the tool in various angular positions and in spaced relation with respect to a work table whereby the tool may be easily manipulated in various angular positions with respect to work supported by the table).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight and Peplow to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, claim 18 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Knight and Peplow as seen above.
Morrissette fails teach wherein the automated locking system includes an override mechanism configured to override a pneumatic supply of the automated locking system, the override mechanism including one or more mechanical locks to prevent any movements between the mast, the carriage and the lateral displacement member. While Morissette does teach pneumatic supplies for locking of the various movements of the system, it does not teach a direct mechanical means for locking the movements.
However, Peplow further teaches
wherein the automated locking system includes an override mechanism configured to override a pneumatic supply of the automated locking system, the override mechanism including one or more mechanical locks to prevent any movements between the mast, the carriage and the lateral displacement member (Figure 2, set screws 13 and 16; Column 1, Lines 44-47, This block 14 slidably carries a horizontally extending shaft 15 and is secured in an adjusted position upon this shaft 15 by set screws 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate set screws to prevent movement, as taught by Peplow, to the various components of Morissette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to hold the parts in adjusted positions (Peplow Column 2, Lines 50-51, I employ set screws for holding the parts in adjusted positions).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Knight and Peplow to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Peplow (US 2587520) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lan (5971677).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Peplow as seen above.
Morissette fails to fully teach wherein the tool arm is securable to the lateral displacement member in an elevated mounting position and in a low mounting position, in the elevated mounting position the tool arm projects upwardly relative to the lateral displacement member.
However, Lan teaches
wherein the tool arm is securable to the lateral displacement member in an elevated mounting position and in a low mounting position, in the elevated mounting position the tool arm projects upwardly relative to the lateral displacement member (Figure 1, see first link support 40, second support bar 50, and second link support 70; Column 3, Lines 33-35, Bolts 44 and 45 serves as hinges carrying the second support bar 50, allowing it to move up and down; Column 3, Lines 53-55, The second link support 70 allows the upper and the lower link bar 51 and 52 to move parallel up and down).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a support bar which hinges such that it moves up and down, as taught by Lan, to the L-shape frame of Morissette. This up and down movement would correlate to an elevated mounting position and a low mounting position as seen in figure 1 of Lan. One would be motivated to make this modification allow for vertical adjustment and save physical effort (Column 1, Lines 56-61, A further objective of this invention consists in providing a control arm system, which efficiently provides for horizontal and vertical adjustment. A further objective of this invention consists in providing a control arm system, which is adjustable to any working position, while saving physical effort).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peplow and Lan to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 is taught fully by Morissette in view of Peplow and Lan as seen above.
Morissette fails to fully teach wherein the tool arm is pivotally mounted to the lateral displacement member via a third joint, the third joint lockable to selectively secure the tool arm in at least one of the elevated mounting position and the low mounting position.
However, Lan teaches
wherein the tool arm is pivotally mounted to the lateral displacement member via a third joint (Figure 5, bolts 44 and 45; Column 3, Lines 33-35, Bolts 44 and 45 serves as hinges carrying the second support bar 50, allowing it to move up and down),
the third joint lockable to selectively secure the tool arm in at least one of the elevated mounting position and the low mounting position (Figure 1, counterforce element 60; Column 4, Lines 23-26, The counterforce element 60 works by returning to its original length when compressed, leaving the second support bar 50 upward inclined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a joint to the support bar which allows locking in an upward inclination, as taught by Lan, to the L-shape frame of Morissette. One would be motivated to make this modification allow for vertical adjustment and save physical effort (Column 1, Lines 56-61, A further objective of this invention consists in providing a control arm system, which efficiently provides for horizontal and vertical adjustment. A further objective of this invention consists in providing a control arm system, which is adjustable to any working position, while saving physical effort).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peplow and Lan to Morissette because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (tool holders), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette (US 20170275947) in view of Peplow (US 2587520) and Knight (US 20170326722) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Stavig, Jr. et al. (US 9168592), hereinafter Stavig, Jr..
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings above for claim 4, Morissette further teaches
the caliper is actuatable via a pneumatic actuator (Paragraph 0064, The pistons 224 of caliper brakes 212, 214 are power operated via hydraulic lines from the hydraulic and pneumatic lines 135).
Morissette fails to fully teach where a clamp is used which is actuatable via a pneumatic actuator.
Peplow teaches wherein a set screw clamping system is used to restrict movement of shaft.
Peplow fails to teach wherein this clamping system is actuatable via a pneumatic actuator.
However, a pneumatically controlled clamp is a known device in the art. For example, Stavig, Jr. teaches a clamp that is actuatable via a pneumatic actuator (See figure 4, step 254; Column 3, Lines 64-67, In step 254 a clamp clamps the part. This may comprise moving a lower clamp arm relative to an upper clamp arm with at least one pneumatic cylinder to clamp the part between the lower and upper clamp arms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use set screws or similar fasteners, as taught by Peplow, as a clamping system to the system of Morissette. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have likewise been able to make a simple substitution of a set screw clamping mechanism, as taught by Peplow, with a similar pneumatically operated clamp, as taught by Stavig, Jr., as this substitution was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make these changes as a means of holding parts in adjusted positions (Peplow Column 2, Lines 50-51, I employ set screws for holding the parts in adjusted positions). For more information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more the of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights