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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschburger et al. (GB 2421701, hereinafter ‘Hirschburger’) in view of Wu (US 20090159633).
Regarding claim 1, Hirschburger discloses a handheld working tool for treating (tacking/stapling) a workpiece having a surface 10. The tool comprises a nose 14 provided for contacting the workpiece at a working point. An indicator 17 is provided for indicating a reference point on the surface of the workpiece at a predetermined point distance to the working point when the tool nose contacts the workpiece at the working point (see Fig. 3). Hirschburger does not disclose the claimed press-on element.
Wu discloses a similar tacking apparatus, and discloses the concept of a press-on element 4. The press-on element acts as a safety and is displaceable up to a pressed-on position, the pressed-on position releasing a driving-in operation of the working tool.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a press-on safety element, such as the one taught by Wu, to the handheld working tool of Hirschburger, in order to prevent operator injury by allowing a fastener to be discharged when the tool is not pressed on to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Hirschburger discloses the indicator being provided for indicating several reference points on the surface of the workpiece at the predetermined distance to the working point (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hirschburger discloses the several reference points forming a reference line 191.
Regarding claim 4, Hirschburger discloses the indicator comprising an adjusting element 24 provided for adjusting the predetermined distance by a user of the tool.
Regarding claim 5, Hirschburger discloses the indicator comprising a light source 26 and a projector 28 projecting a light beam emitted by the light source onto the reference point.
Regarding claim 6, Hirschburger discloses the light source comprising a laser diode.
Claims 7, 9-10, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschburger et al. (GB 2421701) in view of Wu (US 20090159633) as applied to claims 5, 3 and 6 respectively above, and further in view of Holland (US 20150165580).
Regarding claims 7, 9-10, 16 and 20, neither Hirschburger nor Wu disclose the claimed axicon or propagation details claimed.
Holland discloses a similar indicator, wherein a projector 6 comprises a first transparent axicon (lens 6, Paragraph [0046]) having a first optical axis when the tool nose contacts the workpiece at the working point. The indicator comprises an adjusting element (screw threads) that controls the position of the first axicon along the first optical axis for adjusting the predetermined distance (Paragraph [0078]) The first axicon turns the light beam emitted by the light source into a first ring-shaped/circular arc light beam having a propagation direction at a first ring angle with respect to the first optical axis (see e.g. Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the indicator of the tool of claim 6/7 by utilizing the axicon/ring-shaped projection taught by Holland, depending on the desired light output pattern the operator would like.
Regarding claim 17, Hirschburger discloses the first optical axis (i.e. the light beam) intersecting/extending through the working point (see Fig. 3).
Claims 8, 11-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschburger et al. (GB 2421701) in view of Wu (US 20090159633) and Holland (US 20150165580) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (JP 2005028428, hereinafter ‘Hayakawa’).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, none of Hirschburger, Wu or Holland explicitly disclose the concavity of the axicon or the claimed collimator.
Hayakawa discloses a similar optical device, wherein a laser beam is projected through a first convex axicon 23a to turn the beam into a circular arc. The beam is also transmitted through an expander and collimator 22 to ensure the beam is transmitted as parallel light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of claim 7 by constructing the axicon in a convex fashion and to provide a collimator both taught by Hayakawa, in order to ensure the light beam is properly projected onto the workpiece surface.
Regarding claims 12-15 and 18-19, Hirschburger discloses a single light source, as well as Holland (e.g. Fig. 6), but holland discloses a ring/template 15 used to accurately locate the tool on the workpiece.
Hayakawa discloses a single-source laser that is capable of projecting concentric circles to align the tool, such as the indicator of the modified tool of claim 7. The projector comprises first and second axicons 23a and 23b, each having respective first and second optical axes that are coaxial with each other and the working point (claims 18-19). The second axicon turns the first ring-shaped light beam 2b emitted by the first axicon 23a into a second ring-shaped light beam having a different propagation direction at a second ring angle with respect to the second optical axis, different from the first ring angle (see Fig. 1). The first axicon is convex and the second is concave (claim 13) and transparent (claim 14). A distance from the second optical axis at which the first ring-shaped light beam enters the second axicon determines the second ring angle, and the indicator comprises an adjusting element controlling a distance between the first axicon and the second axicon along the second optical axis for adjusting the predetermined distance (see e.g. Figs. 2a-2c) (claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the single-source lighting arrangement of claim 7 with the optical arrangement of Hayakawa, in order to provide the same concentric circle pattern on the workpiece with a single light source, simplifying the apparatus by not requiring a separate template/ring and reducing power consumption (by operating a single light source instead of multiple).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722