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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the claims, it is unclear as to what is meant by a stop-1 geometry, a locking-3 geometry, a stop-3 geometry, a holding-1 geometry, locking-2 geometry, holding-2 geometry, holding-4 geometry, and a locking-4 geometry. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end face" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the coupling geometry" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2,429,375).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a drilling stop for a drilling tool (col. 2, lines 34-37) comprising a shaft (10; Fig. 2) having an axis of symmetry and an outer surface, wherein at least a part of the outer surface has a stop-1 geometry (14), and with a stop-sleeve (12) having a longitudinal axis, which can be placed and moved axially (col. 4, lines 13-16) on the shaft (10), wherein as an additional component a stop-element (38) with a center axis, a locking-3 geometry (i.e., hexagonal; col. 5, lines 24-25) and a stop-3 geometry (i.e., threaded; col. 5, lines 42-43) is provided, which can be moved in the axial direction relative to the axis of symmetry on the shaft (10) by axial positive or frictional locking brought into engagement with the stop-1 geometry (14) and can be adjusted in the axial direction independently of the stop sleeve (12) and against which the stop-sleeve (12) can be placed (col. 5, lines 42-44; Fig. 2) at least indirectly in the axial direction for the purpose of limiting a drilling depth (T), wherein the stop-element (38) has a locking-3 geometry (i.e., hexagonal) and that the shaft (10) has a holding-1 geometry (14) with respect to the axis of symmetry, wherein a) the stop-sleeve (12) has a locking-2 geometry (i.e. hexagonal) on the end face (28), which can be brought into operative contact with the locking-3 geometry in order to fix (col. 5, lines 42-44) the stop-element (38) in the circumferential direction relative to the axis of symmetry, the stop-sleeve (12) having a holding-2 geometry (i.e., threads), which can be brought into a form or force closure in the circumferential direction with the holding-1 geometry (14) of the shaft (10).
Note the structural limitations of paragraphs b) and c) of claim 1are deemed optional based on the manner in which claim 1 is currently written and have not been given patentable weight. If it is applicant’s intent for these limitations to be further limiting then “or” preceding both paragraphs b) and c) should be changed to - -and- - so as to make these limitations required and not optional.
Note also limitations in dependent claims preceded by “or” have been treated as optional.
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses wherein the stop-sleeve (12) has, on the side facing a workpiece to be drilled, a contact element (30) which is rotatable (col. 4, lines 35-37) relative to the stop-sleeve about the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses wherein the axial form or force closure between the stop-element (38) and the shaft (10) can be established independently of the form or force closure acting in the circumferential direction between the stop-sleeve (12) and the shaft (10).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses wherein the stop-3 geometry (i.e., threads) and the stop-1 geometry (14) are designed as right-hand or left-hand threads.
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses the coupling geometry between the shaft (10), stop-sleeve (12), and stop-element (38) are rotationally asymmetrical or designed as a 4-, 6-or 8-edge contour.
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses wherein a machine mount (13) is provided for clamping in a chuck (13a) of a drilling machine (i.e., drilling tool), wherein the machine mount (13) is or can be brought into a form or force closure connection with the drill (D).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses wherein the effective contact between the locking-3 geometry of the stop-element (38) and the locking-2 geometry of the stop-sleeve (12) can be established by axial sliding on top of one another.
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses a drilling stop according to claim 1 and a drilling tool (col. 2, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses wherein the axial form or force closure between the stop-element (38) and the shaft (10) can be established independently of the form or force closure acting in the circumferential direction between the stop-sleeve (12) and the shaft (10).
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses wherein a machine mount (13) is provided for clamping in a chuck (13a) of a drilling machine (i.e., drilling tool), wherein the machine mount (13) is or can be brought into a form or force closure connection with the drill (D), and wherein the effective contact between the locking-3 geometry of the stop-element (38) and the locking-2 geometry of the stop-sleeve (12) can be established without tools and/or by axial sliding on top of one another.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2,429,375).
Smith discloses the stop-3 geometry (i.e., threads) and the stop-1 geometry (14) being threads and it is inherent that the threads are designed as right-hand threads. The stop-element (38) is threaded on shaft (10) and also into contact with stop-sleeve (12) with a clamping torque.
Smith, however, does not disclose wherein the stop-element has a clamping torque (Mk) with respect to the center axis, Mk >= 1 Nm or 0.1 Nm.
It is conventional and well known to tighten a threaded stop-element with a clamping torque based on the dimensions and material composition of the stop-sleeve and the part/component it is brought into contact with or attached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stop-element of Smith with a clamping torque greater than or equal to 0.1 Nm or 1 Nm, as it is known to select clamping torque based on material composition and the environment in which the threaded connection is employed and as such selecting a clamping torque greater than or equal to 0.1 Nm or 1 Nm is well known.
Claim(s) 7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2,429,375) in view of Schuffenhauer (DE 4220635 A1).
Smith discloses wherein a machine mount (13) is provided for clamping in a chuck (13a) of a drilling machine (i.e., drilling tool), wherein the machine mount (13) is or can be brought into a form or force closure connection with the drill (D) can be established without tools and/or by axial sliding on top of one another. Smith also discloses the locking-2 geometry, and the locking-3 geometry as a 6-edge contour (i.e., hexagon). Smith also discloses a system comprising a drilling stop (10, 12, 38) and a drilling tool (col. 2, lines 34-37).
Smith, however, does not disclose the following: wherein the stop-sleeve and/or the stop-element and/or the locking-part are magnetically designed or have a magnet, so that a holding-force acting in the axial direction is formed between the stop-sleeve and the stop-element or between the stop-sleeve and the locking-part or between the stop-element and the locking-part.
Schuffenhauer discloses wherein a stop-element (14) has a magnet (26), so that a holding-force acting in the axial direction is formed between a stop-sleeve (17) and the stop-element (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a recess in the stop-element of Smith and install a magnet so that a holding-force acting in the axial direction is formed between the stop-sleeve and stop-element of Smith, in light of the teachings of Schuffenhauer, in order to magnetically attach the members to one another.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2,429,375) in view of Fuelbier (DE 3332139 A1).
Smith as described in detail discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for wherein a scale is provided on the shaft, by which a stop-depth (T) of the stop-sleeve relative to the drilling tool can be determined.
Fuelbier discloses a depth stop (1, 2) wherein a scale (4) is provided on the shaft (1) by which a stop-depth for the drilling tool can be determined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shaft of Smith with a scale by a stop-depth of the drilling tool can be determined, in light of the teachings of Fuelbier, in order to provide a gauge for measuring the depth for drilling tools.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show drilling stops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights