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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/26/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims were examined and provided with a PCT Written Opinion without a lack of unity indicated. This is not found persuasive because MPEP §1893.03(d) states that an Office may require the election of an invention because of lack of unity for a national stage application, and the examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if one was not applied by another office.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the diameter” in line 9 and “the relative angular position” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the internal diameter” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not this limitation is intended to refer to “the diameter” previously claimed in line 9 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first value of the diameter” in line 2. It is unclear based on the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 1-2 whether this diameter is the internal diameter or a separate diameter of the driving element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the diameter of the rod” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the frequency” and “the amplitude” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the internal surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the ensemble” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (JP 2001225215 A), and further in view of Allan et al. (US 20040021276 A1, hereinafter ‘Allan’).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a driving tool (Fig 9) for driving a rod 6 in rotation, comprising a first stator 2a, a first rotor 2b rotated by the first stator, a first connexion means 3,4 driven by the first rotor 2b and a driving element 4 having a first end mechanically connected to the first connexion means 3,4 and a second end, characterized in that it further comprises a second stator 10a, a second rotor 10b rotated by the second stator, a second connexion means 11,15 driven by the second rotor 10b wherein the second connexion means 11,15 is mechanically connected to the second end of the driving element 4, in that the driving element 4 is a hollow element.
Harada does not explicitly disclose the driving element is an elastically deformable hollow element, the diameter of which can be modified according to the relative angular position of its first end and its second end, and in that the relative angular position of the first rotor and the second rotor can vary so as to modify the relative angular position of the first end and the second end of the driving element.
However, Allan teaches the driving element 16 is an elastically deformable hollow element ([0071]), the diameter of which can be modified according to the relative angular position of its first end 34 and its second end 32b, and in that the relative angular position of the first rotor and the second rotor can vary so as to modify the relative angular position of the first end and the second end of the driving element ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada does not explicitly disclose the internal diameter of the driving element can vary between a first value and a second value.
However, Allan teaches the internal diameter of the driving element 16 can vary between a first value and a second value ([0089-0090]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 2. Harada does not explicitly disclose the first value of the diameter of the driving element is its natural internal diameter, and that the second value corresponds to an extended internal diameter higher than the natural internal diameter.
However, Allan teaches the first value of the diameter of the driving element 16 is its natural internal diameter ([0087-0088]), and that the second value corresponds to an extended internal diameter higher than the natural internal diameter ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 2. Harada does not explicitly disclose the second value of the internal diameter of the driving element results from a variation of the relative angular position the first rotor and the second rotor.
However, the combination of Harada and Allan, where the two end tangs (Allan, 32a) of the torsion spring (Allan, 16) are connected to the first and second rotors (Harada, 2b and 10b) by the first and second connexion means (Harada, 3,4 and 11,15) the second rotor (Harada, 10b) connected to the second motor (Harada, 10) increases the diameter of the chuck with the speeds of the two motors are different, allowing the workpiece to be removed (Harada, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada does not explicitly disclose the natural internal diameter of the driving element is equal or lower than the diameter of the rod.
However, Allan teaches the natural internal diameter of the driving element is equal or lower than the diameter of the rod (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada does not explicitly disclose the driving element is a torsion spring.
However, Allan teaches the driving element 16 is a torsion spring (Figs 1-2, [0070-0071]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving element Harada with the torsion spring of Allan in order to self-tighten the collet chuck during normal operation of the tool (Allan, [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada also discloses the variation of the relative angular position of the first and second end of the driving element results from a modulation of one or both of the frequency and the amplitude of the signals sent to at least one of the first and second stators ([0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada also discloses at least one torque tightening sensor 110 ([0050], the current signal outputs the rotational speed and drive current corresponding with torque).
Regarding claim 9, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada also discloses the internal surface of the first connexion means 3,4 is provided with an additional layer 4 and the second connexion means 11,15 is provided with an additional layer 15.
Regarding claim 10, Harada in view of Allan discloses the driving tool according to claim 1. Harada does not explicitly disclose the ensemble of the first connexion means the second connexion means and the driving element can be manually removed from the driving tool.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that these pieces are removable in order to facilitate easier repair of the machine with replacement parts for these elements, as would be readily understood as a benefit by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
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 K. 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722