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 Notice of Appeal
The Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request - 01/20/2026 has been entered and has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-23 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-23 are pending in the application
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mashiko (US 20130233584 A1) in view of LOVELASS et al. (US 20180318999 A1) in view of Chu (US 20100192705 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 9-10, 12, 17, and 19-20, Mashiko discloses a power tool (electronic pulse driver 1) and method of operating the power tool including/comprising: a housing (1A); a motor (3) within the housing ([0002, 0009, 0035-0040, fig. 1); a user input (25/26/27 and/or arithmetic section 78/CPU, control section 7) on the power tool (arithmetic section 78/CPU [0055-0062]), selecting via the input device that is configured to select one from a group consisting of a first torque setting (minimum), a second torque setting (maximum), and a third torque setting (plurality of prescribed values); and a processor within the housing (control section 7/ arithmetic section 78) and connected to another processor/wireless receiver (CPU/PC 10) to the power tool and with a remote device (10, figs. 2-4), the processor configured to: receive, a first torque level (minimum) and a second torque level (maximum) from the remote device (10) and/or one of a plurality of torque levels for a plurality of operating modes from the remote device (first/second operation modes, setting mode, manipulation mode [0055-0073, 0078], claims 1-12) determine that the power tool is operating in a first mode of the plurality of operating modes and calculate/calculating, with the processor, the third torque level based on the first torque level and the second torque level (dividing the torque range into the number of steps or predetermined number i.e. two- “interval between the maximum value and the minimum value” [0055]), the third torque level being between the first torque level and the second torque level and calculate intermediate torque settings for each of the other plurality of torque levels based on the one of the plurality of torque levels, each of the other plurality of torque levels being between the first torque level and the second torque level (intervals between maximum/minimum) and during operation of the power tool and in response to the selection one of the plurality of torque settings, that a torque of the power tool exceeds one of the plurality of torque levels corresponding which will correspond to a mode of operation ([0040, 0055-0073, 0078], figs. 1-21).
Mashiko states: “plurality of prescribed values that is obtained by equally dividing an interval between the maximum value and the minimum value by the number of steps… maximum value, the minimum value, the number of steps, and the plurality of prescribed values are defined collectively as setting values…calculated by dividing a torque range between the maximum value and the minimum value by the predetermined number…by setting the maximum value and the minimum value each of the tightening torque and subsequently dividing the torque range into the number of steps. For example, assume that the maximum value of the torque is 5 Nm, the minimum value of the torque is 1 Nm, and the number of steps is 5. In this case, the torque range is 1 to 5, the predetermined number is 5, and hence the plurality of prescribed values (Nm) is 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 [0055] … external device is not limited to a PC, but may be a special device for changing the operation mode and the setting values” [0078].
Mashiko fails to explicitly disclose a wireless transceiver within the housing operable to form a wireless connection with the remote device; the user input configured to receive a selection selected from the group consisting of a first torque level, a second torque level, and a third torque level, the processor configured to: receive the torque data, receiving the first torque level and the second torque level via the wireless transceiver and if argued the processor does not calculate the third torque level based on the first torque level and the second torque level and the processor is configured to detect the torque of the power tool based on a motor current sensed by the current sensor -
LOVELASS et al. a wireless transceiver (264/274) within the housing operable to form a wireless connection with the remote device (application library 268/user interface device 272, fig. 18); a user input (272) configured to receive a selection selected from the group consisting of a first torque level, a second torque level, and a third torque level, the processor configured to: receive the torque data, receiving the first torque level and the second torque level via the wireless transceiver [0101, 0108-0113] and teaches having a plus button 234 or the minus button 236 to incrementally increase/decrease a current load level and the current is “equated to a torque force” for a user to adjust torques which is a form of calculating a third torque and the torque of the power tool based on a motor current sensed by the current sensor ([0072-0073, 0090-0094], figs. 18-22).
Chu teaches a screw tightening device (2, fig. 1) having a control circuit (digital display control module 3) having wire or wireless communication [0016-0023], with storing a designated number of torques (pre-set [0019, 0026] and calculating torques with strain measurements (comparison of a torque value as transmitted and measured from the torque sensor 14 with a pre-set torque value and obtain relationship between torque and strain, ([0026-0050], figs. 1 and 5-8).
Given the teachings of Mashiko of having a first torque level (minimum), a second torque level (maximum), and a third torque level (interval between or desired plurality of prescribed values) and teaches having a plurality of torque levels with even distribution between maximum and minimum, it 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 to modify the processor with having a wireless transceiver within the housing operable to form a wireless connection with the remote device; the user input configured to receive a selection selected from the group consisting of a first torque level, a second torque level, and a third torque level, the processor configured to: receive the torque data, receiving the first torque level and the second torque level via the wireless transceiver and if argued the processor does not calculate the third torque level based on the first torque level and the second torque level to have remote transfer of data, automated calculations of even distribution of torques between maximum and minimum torques, for obtaining the correct tightening torque, safety torque values to avoid over straining the device and/or precise adjustment of speed/torque, avoid stripping by having torque stop before maximum to achieve optimal fastener/screw hold strength as taught by Iwata et al. and as further taught and evidenced by LOVELASS et al. and Chu.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 18, Mashiko discloses the first torque level is provided for a first mode and the second torque level is provided for a second mode [0035, 0068-0069], the power tool further comprising: a mode selector (26 and/or PC 10) configured to select between the first mode and the second mode; the electronic processor is further configured to: receive, via the wireless transceiver, the second torque level from the remote device (or PC 10) for the second mode, receive, using the mode selector, a selection of the second mode, detect, during operation of the power tool, that the torque of the power tool exceeds the second torque level, and generate an indication that the torque exceeds the second torque level ([0002, 0009, 0035-0040, 0055-0073, 0078], claims 9-10).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mashiko discloses the first torque level is provided as a fixed magnitude of torque [0004, 0040, 0055, 0062-0064, 0069-0072, 0075].
Claim(s) 6 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mashiko (US 20130233584 A1) in view of LOVELASS et al. (US 20180318999 A1) in view of Chu (US 20100192705 A1) in view of Gustafson et al. (US 20150351819 A1) and further in view of Murthy et al. (US 20130105189 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Mashiko discloses a current sensor (circuit 71) connected to the processor (arithmetic section 78/CPU, control section 7), wherein the processor is configured to detect the torque via a torque determining unit ([0007-0011, 0040, 0047-0063], claim 4).
Mashiko fails to disclose the first torque level or a torque level is provided as a percentage of available torque.
Gustafson et al. teaches an anti-kickback feature and haptic feedback via vibration of handle (135 [0035, 0166]) and anti-kickback via warning/stop, retracting [0083-0109, 0123, 0134, 0191] and a torque level is provided as a percentage of available torque [0021, 0088, 0161-0165] with ratchet 105, torque sensor/torque cell 110 and strain gauges 115 [0034-0037, 0060]).
Murthy et al. also teaches an electronic clutch collar or switch with processor is configured to detect the torque of the power tool based on a motor current sensed by a current sensor (clutch with force sensor, abstract, [0005-0015, 0043, 0049-0062], claims 1, 11, and 14-15) and teaches detecting and initiating that the torque exceeds a torque threshold level [0003-0004, 0053-0054, 0061-0064] and the first torque level is provided as a percentage of available torque [0062]
Given the teachings of Mashiko of having a plurality of torque levels with even distribution between maximum and minimum, a current sensor connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to detect the torque via a torque determining unit, it 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 to modify the processor configured to detect the torque of the power tool based on a motor current sensed by the current sensor, wherein the first torque level is provided as a percentage of available torque wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, via the wireless transceiver, a request to enable an anti-kickback feature; receive, via the wireless transceiver, an anti-kickback level for the anti-kickback feature; set the anti-kickback torque level; detect, during operation of the power tool, that the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level; and stop the motor when the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level, to have remote transfer of data, automated calculations of even distribution of torques between maximum and minimum torques, distribute the torque via percentages for obtaining ideal torque and/or precise adjustment of speed/torque, avoid stripping by having torque stop before maximum to achieve optimal fastener/screw hold strength as taught by Gustafson et al. and/or for vibration adjustment control to minimize vibration purposes and calculating speed intervals around a target speed as taught by Oberheim and Murthy et al.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 21-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mashiko (US 20130233584 A1) in view of Iwata (US 20110000688 A1) in view of HAGIWARA et al. (JP 2013202744 A) in view of Makimae et al. (US 20040027082 A1) in view of Gustafson et al. (US 20150351819 A1) and further in view of LOVELASS et al. (US 20130327552 A1)
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 21-23, Mashiko fails to disclose the indication includes ratcheting the motor, and an intensity of the ratcheting is set by the processor based on a selected torque level.
Gustafson et al. teaches includes detecting intensity of strain is set by the processor based on a selected torque level (ratchet 105, torque sensor/torque cell 110 and strain gauges 115 [0034-0037, 0060]) and haptic feedback via vibration of handle (135 [0035, 0060, 0166, 0348]).
Boeheim teaches an indication includes ratcheting the motor (jerk of housing with motor), and an intensity of the ratcheting is set by the processor based on acceleration/speed [0030, 0066-0068].
Burch et al. also teaches indication includes ratcheting the motor (tactile vibration), and an intensity of the ratcheting is set by the processor based on performance of the tool 105, locating the tool, handshake/mis-matched security codes [0062-0066, 0071, 0078-0080, 0107, 0114, 0161-0163].
LOVELASS et al. also teaches a user input (clutch collar or switch, 32/36), the torque level is provided as a percentage of available torque [0089], having a current sensor (PCB 40, current sensor [0087-0092], claims 11-12) connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to detect the torque based on a motor current sensed by the current sensor wherein the torque level is provided as a fixed magnitude of torque, calculating an estimated torque based on the motor current, ([0009, 0053, 0071, 0074, 0078, 0092], figs. 1-2 and 12-15) wherein the indication includes ratcheting the motor, and an intensity of the ratcheting is set by the processor based on the torque level [0003-0009, 0068, 0074-0075, 0082-0084, 0093, 0099-0101] with an electronic processor is further configured to: receive, via the wireless transceiver (264 [0101]), a torque level from a remote device (auto torque, mode [0054]) and setting torque levels (different clutch settings for maximum torque setting [0009, 0095, 0101, 0113], claim 3).
Given the teachings of Mashiko of having a plurality of torque levels with even distribution between maximum and minimum, wherein the processor is configured to detect the torque via a torque determining unit, it 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 to modify the torque determining unit with having a feedback/output indication includes ratcheting the motor, and an intensity of the ratcheting is set by the processor based on a selected torque level for warning feedback purposes, warning to avoid over torquing to avoid stripping by having torque stop before maximum to achieve optimal fastener/screw hold strength as taught by Gustafson et al., improve fastener installation feedback of the tool as taught by LOVELASS et al. and/or for vibration adjustment control as taught by Oberheim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15, is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a power tool device having a processor comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, an external wireless remote device communicating to the power tool torque values for the power tool processor to configure more settings of torque from at least one torque value being transmitted and the power tool processor is further configured to receive, via the wireless transceiver, a request to enable an anti-kickback feature; receive, via the wireless transceiver, an anti-kickback level for the anti-kickback feature; set an anti-kickback torque level; detect, during operation of the power tool, that the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level; and stop the motor when the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level. Though Mashiko teaches a an external wireless remote device communicating to the power tool torque values for the power tool processor to configure more settings of torque from at least one torque value being transmitted and the power tool processor, it would not be obvious to modify the remote device and the power tool processor being configured to receive, via the wireless transceiver, a request to enable an anti-kickback feature; receive, via the wireless transceiver, an anti-kickback level for the anti-kickback feature; set an anti-kickback torque level; detect, during operation of the power tool, that the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level; and stop the motor when the torque of the power tool exceeds the anti-kickback torque level without having to substantially modify both the power tool processor and the external remoted device member to function with additional torque mode safety settings. Having the efficiency and safety of torque/operational modes being sent to a power tool provides an effective instructional operation mode for ensuring the power tool is operated corrected and with correct settings.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See references cited, form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731