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
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper (US 2023/0030817) in view of Haase (US 2013/0305544) and official notice.
Regarding claim 1, Piper (US 2023/0030817) discloses A knockout punch tool set comprising:
a draw stud (34 figure 16, inter alia) comprising:
a driving end (44, 74 figure 2),
Piper does not disclose the driving end comprising a recess (See hex recess shown in 36 in Figure 11; which is the driven end, for alignment);
Piper further discloses a front end opposing the driving end (22 figure 1).
Piper further discloses a threaded portion (48, 34, figure 2)positioned between the driving end and the front end.
Piper further discloses a punch(90, 92, figure 2), the punch couplable to the draw stud (See figure 1) and further discloses a die(24), the die couplable to the draw stud (See 24 figure 1);
Piper further discloses a drive (32 figure 1),
Piper does not discloses the drive positioned within the recess of the driving end because it appears Piper uses an external drive shape to engage with the head 74 in figure 2.
Piper further discloses a powered tool configured to rotate the drive (See figure 3 at 32a).
Piper therefore lacks the use of a square internal hole receiver for the acceptance of the driving force of the power tool. This is a well known feature in the art, as seen at Haase (US 2013/0305544) 68 figure 2 ids a receiver in square shape for the acceptance of the prime drive for the overall driving of the mechanism which leads to the draw stud and punch arrangement of Haase. In that context it would have been obvious to replace the hexagonal head of the drive of Piper with the known equivalent recess in square shape shown in Haase, since they are disclosed for the same purpose and will be substituted with no undue experimentation or have no unexpected results. Additionally, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Here, it does not matter whether the drive portion on the tool is a positive or negative space, so long as it has a corresponding opposite in the drive of the tool which drives it—since in either case the friction and correspondence of shapes will act to permit the same force driving. Alternatively, the addition of the known square receiver type drive is motivated since it provides an additional and alternative method of driving the tool, which is prima facie beneficial, since it increases the number or type of drives which may drive the tool.
Regarding claim 2, the powered tool is one of an impact drill (See [0021] of Haase, discloses the use of an impact drill, per se, as seen). Alternatively in the context of a driven axial tool, examiner takes official notice that impact drivers are ubiquitously known for the purpose of rotational driving of tool elements.
Regarding claim 3 As noted above, the drive as modified by Haase is a square drive.
Regarding claim 4, As noted above, the driving end of the draw stud further comprises a plurality of outer surfaces (See figure 1-2 of Piper; in this context, the use of hex head and/or internal square drive are both seen and obvious to use in the combination—not substitution)
Regarding claim 5, See piper figure 2.
Regarding claim 6, the combination as set forth above clearly renders this obvious.
Regarding claim 7-8 The knockout punch tool set of claim 6, wherein the driving end is configured to be engaged by a manual tool (See figures 1-2 of Piper—the tool is manual and ratchet wrench as at [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, the draw stud further comprises a bore in the front end (See figure 11 Piper), and wherein the bore is couplable to a step bit (by the hex slot shown therein).
Regarding claim 10, the clause “…step bit comprises: a drilling end; an engagement end that opposes the drilling end, the engagement end coupled to the bore of the draw stud; anda reamer positioned between the drilling end and the engagement end.” Is met by Piper as above, since the claim is to a tool having the ability to engage such a bit—the bit could clearly be inserted in the hex slot shown in figure 11, therefore meeting the claim.
Claims 11-13 are clearly obvious for the same reasons as claims 1-4, inter alia.
Regarding claim 14. Piper does not disclose the threaded portion of the draw stud includes a plurality of ACME threads-0- ACME threads are known in the art, and examiner takes official notice that this is one of only a few kinds of threads suitable in this context and therefore it would have been obvious to select ACME threads from a limited number of potential and known solutions to what type of threads would be selected. Claim 17 is obvious for the same reason.
Claims 15-16, 18-20 are obvious over the same art and logic as applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights