Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Di Troia (US 5,657,417) in view of Okubo, (US 2013/0186661).
Regarding claim 1, Di Troia discloses: A method of controlling operation of a tool having a motor (Fig. 2, motor 26), and a power source (Fig. 2, battery 28) adapted to supply power to the motor, an output assembly (Fig. 1, compression head 14) that is adapted to apply torque to a work piece, and a trigger (Fig. 2, trigger 36) that, when actuated, causes the power source to supply power to the motor, the method comprising:
initiating a motor timer when the trigger is actuated, power is being supplied to the motor, (Fig. 3, trigger control 64; Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 5, line 40 describes in detail the function of the control mechanism and the trigger switch device. Furthermore, Fig. 5, box 102, pathway 1 further describes the actuation of the trigger; Col. 6, line 27, “The present invention does not have a continuous trickle drain on the battery, but still allows electronic control after the trigger 44 is released. The switch 78 disconnects the battery from the control system a predetermined period of time, such as about 4.5 seconds, after a predetermined event, such as actuation of switch 38. However, any suitable predetermined period of time could be used and any suitable predetermined event could be used” – the inclusion of the phrase “any suitable predetermined event could be used” indicates that the timer can be initiated by the activation of the trigger, 36, rather than the switch 38), initiating a motor timer (Fig. 3, timer 61, Fig. 5, timer 120); and
causing power being supplied to the motor to stop when the motor timer meets or exceeds a motor timer threshold (“Abstract: A tool with a battery, an electrical motor, and a control system. The control system has a trigger control that connects the battery to a timer and a voltage monitor. The trigger control has a user actuated switch and a timer actuated switch. At the end of a tool operational cycle, when the user is not actuating the user actuated switch, the timer actuated switch can supply electricity to the control system. After a predetermined period of time, the timer actuated switch can then automatically electrically disconnect the control system from the battery to conserve battery power”; Col. 1, line 27, “When the user actuated switch is not being actuated by a user, and upon the end of the limited period of time, supply of electricity to the timer and the voltage monitor is stopped by the trigger control”; Col. 6, line 27, “The present invention does not have a continuous trickle drain on the battery, but still allows electronic control after the trigger 44 is released. The switch 78 disconnects the battery from the control system a predetermined period of time, such as about 4.5 seconds, after a predetermined event, such as actuation of switch 38. However, any suitable predetermined period of time could be used and any suitable predetermined event could be used”. see further claims 6 and 17 and Figures 3-5).
Di Troia does not explicitly disclose: initiating a motor timer when no resistance is being applied to the output assembly.
Okubo teaches: initiating a motor timer when no resistance is being applied to the output assembly ( see load judging unit discussion in [0055-0060], further Abstract, “The load judging unit judges whether or not a load is applied to the end bit during rotation of the motor. The motor stop control unit stops the rotation of the motor irrespective of the instructions of the trigger switch when the load judging unit judges that no load is applied to the end bit and a period of a non-load state exceeds a predetermined time period.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the computer control system and integration and load measuring device as taught by Okubo in combination with the device of Di Troia, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is discussed in [0057], “ According to the above-described control, rotation of the motor 21 is stopped irrespective of depression state of the trigger switch 13 if no load is applied to the end bit 2 during rotation of the motor 21 and the period of the non-load state exceeds the predetermined time period. Accordingly, continuation of the rotation of the motor 21 can be avoided even if the rotation of the motor 21 is unintentionally started. Consequently, any damage to the power tool 1 or to a working site ambient to the power tool 1 can be avoided. Further, over-discharge of the battery can be avoided, if the power tool 1 is a cordless tool.”.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Di Troia further discloses: activating an indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68) of the tool when the motor timer meets or exceeds the motor timer threshold; and initiating an indicator timer (see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Di Troia further discloses: after power being supplied to the motor is stopped, determining whether the trigger remains actuated (Fig. 5, box 102).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Di Troia further discloses: deactivating the indicator when the indicator timer meets or exceeds an indicator timer threshold when the trigger (Fig. 2, trigger 36) remains actuated (Fig. 5, timer boxes 120 and 112).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Di Troia further discloses: deactivating the indicator when the trigger is not actuated (Fig. 5, box 116).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Di Troia further discloses: after the power being supplied to the motor is stopped, determining whether the power source is decoupled from the tool (Fig. 5, boxes 102 and 122).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Di Troia further discloses: deactivating the indicator when the indicator timer meets or exceeds an indicator timer threshold and when the power source is coupled to the tool (Fig. 5, timer boxes 120 and 112).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Di Troia further discloses: deactivating the indicator when the power source is decoupled from the tool (Fig. 5, box 116).
Regarding claim 9, Di Troia further discloses: A tool, comprising:
a motor (Fig. 2, motor 26);
a power source adapted to supply power to the motor (Fig. 2, battery 28); an output assembly (Fig. 1, compression head 14) adapted to apply torque to a work piece and
a trigger that (Fig. 3, trigger control 64; Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 5, line 40 describes in detail the function of the control mechanism and the trigger switch device. Furthermore, Fig. 5, box 102, pathway 1 further describes the actuation of the trigger)(Fig. 2, trigger 36)(Fig. 5, box 116) , when actuated, causes the power source to supply power to the motor;
a controller (Fig. 2, control system 18m Figs. 3-5 shows the control system) adapted to:
initiate a motor timer (Fig. 5, timer path actuating timer 112) when the trigger is actuated (Fig. 5, trigger box 102), power is being supplied to the motor (Fig. 5, voltage box 104),
cause power being supplied to the motor to stop when the motor timer meets or exceeds a motor time threshold (see the flow chart of Fig. 5, which describes these claim limitations. Further written description (although not the only discussion of this feature) is discussed in Col. 1, line 27, “When the user actuated switch is not being actuated by a user, and upon the end of the limited period of time, supply of electricity to the timer and the voltage monitor is stopped by the trigger control”).
Di Troia does not explicitly disclose: initiating a motor timer when no resistance is being applied to the output assembly.
Okubo teaches: initiating a motor timer when no resistance is being applied to the output assembly ( see load judging unit discussion in [0055-0060], further Abstract, “The load judging unit judges whether or not a load is applied to the end bit during rotation of the motor. The motor stop control unit stops the rotation of the motor irrespective of the instructions of the trigger switch when the load judging unit judges that no load is applied to the end bit and a period of a non-load state exceeds a predetermined time period.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the computer control system and integration and load measuring device as taught by Okubo in combination with the device of Di Troia, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is discussed in [0057], “ According to the above-described control, rotation of the motor 21 is stopped irrespective of depression state of the trigger switch 13 if no load is applied to the end bit 2 during rotation of the motor 21 and the period of the non-load state exceeds the predetermined time period. Accordingly, continuation of the rotation of the motor 21 can be avoided even if the rotation of the motor 21 is unintentionally started. Consequently, any damage to the power tool 1 or to a working site ambient to the power tool 1 can be avoided. Further, over-discharge of the battery can be avoided, if the power tool 1 is a cordless tool.”.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Di Troia further discloses: an indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68), and wherein the controller is further adapted to: activate the indicator when the motor timer meets or exceeds the motor timer threshold; and initiate an indicator timer (see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Di Troia further discloses: wherein the controller is further adapted to: determine whether the trigger remains actuated after stopping the supply of power to the motor (see Figs. 3-5. Cols. 2, line 45- Col. 6, line 34 discuss in detail the functionality of the flow chart described electrical system).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Di Troia further discloses: the controller is further adapted to deactivate the indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68) when the indicator timer meets or exceeds an indicator time threshold when the trigger remains actuated (see Figs. 3-5. Cols. 2, line 45- Col. 6, line 34 discuss in detail the functionality of the flow chart described electrical system, especially timer boxes 120 and 112).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Di Troia further discloses: the controller is further adapted to deactivate the indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68), when the trigger does not remain actuated (Fig. 5, box 116).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Di Troia further discloses: wherein the controller is further adapted to: determine whether the power source is decoupled from the tool after stopping the supply of power to the motor (Fig. 5, box 100),
Regarding claim 15, the modified Di Troia further discloses: the controller is further adapted to deactivate the indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68)when the indicator timer meets or exceeds an indicator time threshold when the power source is coupled to the tool (Fig. 5, timer boxes 120 and 112).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Di Troia further discloses: the controller is further adapted to deactivate the indicator (Fig 3, LED control green 68) when the power source is decoupled from the tool (Fig. 5, box 100).
Regarding claims 19-21, the modified Di Troia anticipates the device of claims 1-20. Therefore, under MPEP 2112.02, Process Claims [R-07.2015], the method of claims 19-21 are also anticipated, and therefore rejected. “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Troia, (US 5,657,417) in view Okubo, (US 2013/0186661), further in view of Stickel, (US 2021/0091588).
Regarding claim 17, Di Troia discloses the device of claim 9,
Di Troia does not explicitly disclose: the controller includes a data storage component storing executable instructions.
Stickel teaches: the controller includes a data storage component storing executable instructions ([0029] “In terms of a data memory, in particular a semi-permanent memory, that is to say a non-volatile memory, the information of which can be modified during operation, can be provided. For example, an EPROM, EEPROM, Flash-EEPROM, FRAM or MRAM memory can be provided”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Di Troia in accordance with the teachings of Stickel, thereby combining prior art elements in in order to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of the inclusion of data storage for executable instructions allows the device settings to be altered based upon the designer’s intent.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Di Troia further discloses: data storage component is a ferroelectric random access memory (FRAM) ([0029] “In terms of a data memory, in particular a semi-permanent memory, that is to say a non-volatile memory, the information of which can be modified during operation, can be provided. For example, an EPROM, EEPROM, Flash-EEPROM, FRAM or MRAM memory can be provided”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights