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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5, and 14, the cancelation of claim 4, and the addition of new independent claim 22.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 22, lines 10-12 reads: “such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle switch”, should read, “such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Cutting unit” as recited in claims 1 and 14 (first, “for” and “performs” are a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for cutting a target object” and “performs a first motion”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting unit” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, here no structure is provided for the unit by the claim).
“Driving device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “for” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for driving the cutting unit to move”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “driving device” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, here no structure is provided for the device by the claim).
“Deceleration assembly” as recited in claims 1 and 14 (first, while the limitation does not use a generic placeholder like “means” or the like the limitation “deceleration assembly” reads as “an assembly for deceleration” which meets the first test; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “deceleration” as while deceleration is part of the limitation itself it also describes the function of the limitation; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “deceleration assembly” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, here no structure is provided for the assembly by the claim).
“Brake assembly” as recited in claims 1 and 14 (first, while the limitation does not use a generic placeholder like “means” or the like the limitation “brake assembly” reads as “an assembly for braking” which meets the first test, further, while braking is a term related to a broad class of structures capable of performing braking the “braking assembly” of the instant invention does not perform “braking” and, as claimed in claims 1 and 14, performs functions other than those known to fall under “braking”, including acting on the deceleration assembly; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “brake” as while braking is part of the limitation itself it also describes the function of the limitation; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “brake assembly” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, here no structure is provided for the assembly by the claim).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 18, the claim states “wherein a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion” in lines 1-3 of the claim. This claim is improper as it no longer further limits independent claim 14, from which it depends, which includes the exact limitation in lines 22-24 of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1) in view of Winkel et al. (US 9,339,938 B2), Wason (US 2013/0227843 A1 and Abbott et al. (US 2019/0227528 A1).
Regard claim 1, Perkins teaches an electric pipe cutter (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 20), comprising:
a casing (Perkins, Figs. 1-3, 32, 40 and 44) comprising a support portion (Perkins, Figs. 1-7, 24);
a cutting unit (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 28) for cutting a target object (Perkins, P. 0025), the cutting unit movably mounted to the support portion (Perkins, Fig. 7, 24 and 28, P. 0036);
a driving device (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30) coupled to the cutting unit (Perkins, P. 0025) for driving the cutting unit to move between a first cutting position and a second cutting position relative to the support portion (Perkins, P. 0027);
a transmission device (Perkins, Figs. 9-15, 166, 218, 350, 450, 650) coupling the driving device to the cutting unit, the transmission device comprising a deceleration assembly (Perkins, Fig. 10, 190);
a toggle switch movable between a first toggle position and a second toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “forward” and “reverse”), while Perkins does not teach that the switch is specifically a toggle switch Perkins does teach that any of their actuators may be buttons, triggers, switches, sliders, or any other actuator (Perkins, P. 0027) and, further, the toggle switch taught by Perkins switches between two positions for a forward and reserve operation which reads on a toggle switch.
wherein, when the toggle switch is moved to the first toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “forward”), the cutting unit performs a first motion under an action of the driving device and the cutting unit moves from the second cutting position to the first cutting position to achieve a downward cutting action (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027),
when the second switch is moved into the second toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “reverse”), the cutting unit performs a second motion under the action of the driving device and the cutting unit moves from the first cutting position to the second cutting position to achieve an upward recovery action (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027);
wherein the driving device comprises an electric motor (Perkins, P. 0025) and the toggle switch is arranged so that, be being moved from the first toggle position to the second toggle position, the toggle switch controls reverse rotation of the electric motor (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027).
Perkins does not teach a brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position and the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the second toggle position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position, so that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion and wherein when the toggle switch is moved from the first toggle position to the second toggle position the toggle switch outputs a signal to drive the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly.
Winkel teaches an electric pipe cutter (Winkel, Figs. 1-11) comprising a toggle switch (Winkel, Figs. 1-5, 52) connected to a deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c) by a connecting rod (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 53) and a brake assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 43) connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c), such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 9-26). And when the toggle switch is in the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the second position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position (Winkle, Col. 4 line 53 – Col. 5 line 3). And when the toggle switch is moved from the first toggle position to the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly (Winkle, Col. 5, lines 18-26). Such an arrangement allows for manual selective activation and deactivation of the deceleration unit (Winkel, Col. 4, lines 38-52). Winkel shows that it is known in the art to have a toggle switch to activate and deactivate a deceleration assembly before initializing a downward cutting action or upward recovery action.
Wason teaches an electric pipe cutter (Wason, Figs. 1-13, 11) wherein the speed at which the cutting unit performs the upward cutting motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the downward cutting motion (Wason, P. 0003 and 0006). This allows for the unit to be quickly returned to the initial position to allow another cutting action (Wason, P. 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Perkins to include a brake assembly connected to a toggle switch by a connecting rod, the brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, the brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position, and when the toggle switch is in the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the second position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position as taught by Winkle such that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than the speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motions as evidenced by Wason as such a modification allows for the selective activation and deactivation of a deceleration assembly.
Abbott teaches a hand tool (Abbott, Fig. 1, 105, P. 0081) comprising a switch (Abbott, Figs. 1 and 5A, 510 and 555) wherein the switch when moved from one position to another position outputs a signal indicative of the position of the switch (Abbott, P. 0128). Such a switch allows for the device to be controlled electronically (Abbott, P. 0128) instead of a manual or physically linked switch like those taught by Perkins and provides finer control for the device (Abbott, P. 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by Perkins such that the toggle switch output a signal like the switch taught by Abbott as such a switch allows finer controller of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, wherein the transmission device (Perkins, Figs. 9-15, 166, 218, 350, 450, 650) comprises an output shaft (Perkins, Fig. 9, 162) connected to the driving device (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30), an output gear (Perkins, Figs. 9-11, 210) connected to the cutting unit (Perkins, Figs. 9-11, 28), and the deceleration assembly (Perkins, Fig. 10, 190) is connecting the output gear (Perkins, Figs. 9-11, 210) to the output shaft (Perkins, Fig. 9, 162).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins in view of Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, wherein the cutting unit (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 28) is driven to move from the second cutting position to the first cutting position when the electric motor rotates forward (Perkins, P. 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins in view of Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 5, further comprising a main switch (Perkins, Figs. 2-3, 52) for controlling the electric motor (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30) and the electric motor rotates forward when the main switch is operated (Perkins, P. 0027).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches electric pipe cutter of claim 6, wherein the electric motor reverses when the main switch is not operated and the toggle switch (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64) is operated.
Regarding claim 8, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, further comprising a steering controller (Perkins, Fig. 2, 64) configured to switch the driving device between forward rotation and reverse rotation according to a state of the electric pipe cutter or an operation of a user so that the cutting unit performs the first motion or the second motion (Perkins, P. 0064).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, wherein the driving device comprises an electric motor (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30) configured to drive the cutting unit perform the second motion (Perkins, P. 0027).
Regarding claim 21, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, further comprising a connection rod (Winkle, Figs. 4-5, 53), wherein the deceleration assembly is connected to the toggle switch through the connection rod (Winkle, Figs. 4-5, 52, 53 and 43).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1) in view of Winkel (US 9,339,938 B2), Wason (US 2013/0227843 A1) and Abbott et al. (US 2019/0227528 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kritchever (US 5,495,672 A).
Regarding claim 10, Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, wherein the driving device comprises an electric motor (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30), the electric pipe cutter further comprises a battery pack (Perkins, P. 0026) for powering the electric motor, the electric motor is disposed in the casing (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30 and 32), and the battery pack is disposed at a rear end of the casing (Perkins, P. 0026).
Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott does not teach the battery pack disposed at a lower side of the electric motor. Perkins and Wason do not disclose the location of attachment and position of the battery pack in relation to the motor while Winkle teaches a battery pack as a lower end of a handle away from the motor.
Kritchever teaches the battery pack (Kritchever, Figs. 1-2, Col. 4, lines 18-21) in line with the motor (Kritchever, Figs. 1-2, 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the power tool taught by Perkins in view of Winkle, Wason and Abbott such that the battery pack was disposed at a lower side of the electric motor or to be in any desirable positional relationship with the motor as it would only require routine skill in the art to select a position for the battery pack as taught by Kritchever as such rearrangement of parts are routine in the art and changing the position of the battery pack would have no effect on the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins in view of Kritchever, Winkle, Wason and Abbott teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 10, wherein the casing (Perkins, Figs. 1-3, 32, 40 and 44) comprises a tool portion (Perkins, Figs. 1-3, 40) for supporting the cutting unit and a lower end surface of the tool portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Perkins) below).
Perkins in view of Kritchever, Winkle, Wason and Abbott does not teach wherein the lower end surface of the tool portion is higher than a lower end surface of the battery pack in a up and down direction.
While Perkins does not teach a position for the battery and does not show a battery, Perkins does show that it is known in the art for the lower end surface of the battery receiving portion to be in line with the lower end surface of the tool portion thus the lower end surface of the battery pack of Perkins would be at most in line with the lower end surface of the tool portion. Additionally, Kritchever teaches a battery pack (Kritchever, Figs. 1-2, 40, Col. 4, lines 18-21) with a lower end surface that would be higher than the lower end surface of the tool head.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the battery pack of Perkins in view of Kritchever, Winkle, Wason and Abbott such that the lower end surface was lower than the tool head portion as such changes in shape would require only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). As the relationship of the lower end surfaces would not change the function of the device having one surface extending further in one direction or another would be a matter of ordinary design choice for a worker in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 2010/0325894 A1) in view of Winkel (US 9,339,938 B2), Abbott (US 2019/0227528 A1), Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1), Kritchever (US 5,496,672 A) and Ceroll et al. (US 2020/0189017 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Scott teaches an electric pipe cutter (Scott, Figs. 1-12, 10, 10B, 110, and 310), comprising:
an electric motor (Scott, Figs. 2-3, 146);
a casing (Scott, Fig. 2, 116) comprising a support portion (Scott, Fig. 2, 126);
a cutting unit (Scott, Fig. 2, 130) for cutting a target object (Scott, P. 0036) and moving between a first cutting position and a second cutting position relative to the support portion of the casing under an action of the electric motor (Scott, P. 0035 and 0041);
a deceleration assembly (Scott, Fig. 3, 154) disposed between the electric motor and the cutting unit;
a main switch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Scott) below) that causes the motor to drive the device in a first motion from the second cutting position to the first cutting position (Scott, P. 0041 and 0043-0044).
Scott does not teach wherein the main switch outputs a main switch state signal through a state of the main switch, controls the electric motor to initiate forward rotation; the pipe cutter comprises a toggle switch, wherein the toggle switch outputs a toggle switch state signal to control the electric motor to initiate reverse rotation, to drive the cutting unit to perform a second motion in which the cutting unit moves from the first cutting position to the second cutting position; and a brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly and that moves under the action of the toggle switch, wherein, when the toggle switch is actuated alone and without the main switch being actuated, the toggle switch outputs the toggle switch state signal to control the electric motor to perform reverse rotation and drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is actuated is reduced so that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion.
First, Winkel teaches an electric pipe cutter (Winkel, Figs. 1-11) comprising a toggle switch (Winkel, Figs. 1-5, 52) connected to a deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c) by a connecting rod (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 53) and a brake assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 43) connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c), such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position with a reduced gear ratio and the second toggle position without a reduced gear ratio (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 9-26). Such an arrangement allows for manual selective activation and deactivation of the deceleration unit (Winkel, Col. 4, lines 38-52) and such ratios allows for higher torque to be output while cutting (Winkel, Col. 4, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by Scott to include a toggle switch connected to a brake assembly by a connecting rod and a brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly such that when the toggle switch is toggled the gear ratio is reduced such that the cutting unit to perform the second motion at a speed greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion like that taught by Winkel as doing so allows for the selective activation and deactivation of the deceleration assembly and allows for higher torque while cutting.
Second, Abbott teaches a power tool (Abbott, Figs. 1-3, 100, 200, 300 and 400) that may be a pipe cutter (Abbott, P. 0081) featuring a main switch (Abbott, Figs. 1-3, 510 and 555, P. 0085 and 0087), wherein the main switch outputs a main switch state signal through a state of the main switch, controls the electric motor to perform forward rotation, and drives the cutting unit to perform a first motion in which the cutting unit moves from the second position to the first position (Abbott, P. 0087), here it is understood that when powered the device of Abbott would perform the same process as Scott and drive the motor to perform the first motion. Such switches allow for user select alternative operating modes (Abbott, P. 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the main switch taught by Scott such that it outputs a main switch state signal through a state of the main switch as taught by Abbott as doing so would allow for alternative operating modes.
Next, Perkins teaches a power tool (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 20) featuring a second switch (Perkins, Figs. 2-3, 56) comprising a depressed position (Perkins, P. 0027), wherein the toggle switch outputs a toggle switch state signal through a state of the toggle switch, controls the electric motor to perform reverse rotation, and drives the cutting unit to perform a second motion in which the cutting unit moves from the first position to the second position (Perkins, Figs. 2-3, 56, P. 0027). Including a second switch like the switch taught by Perkins allows for a switch, separate from the main switch, to reset the device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the electric pipe cutter taught by Scott to add a second switch like the one taught by Perkins to allow the device to be driven to reset from the first position to the second position by a separate switch.
Further, Perkins teaches that it is known in the art of power tools for a switch to perform multiple functions and that the result of activating such a switch would result in the predicable outcome of the desired functions being performed (Perkins, Figs. 2-3, 56, P. 0027). As such, adding additional functions of the toggle switch taught by Perkins known to be performed by another switch like the main switch taught by Scott, which activates the motor to drive the cutting unit, would only require a level of regular skill in the art and would thus have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill, when building the device from the ground up, would look to modify the toggle switch taught by Perkins such that when activated any number of desirable functions would be performed as such an arrangement would reduce the number of button presses needed.
Kritchever teaches a power tool (Kritchever, Figs. 1-2, 2) comprising a toggle switch (Kritchever, Figs. 1-2, 14) wherein when the toggle switch is in a first position it performs an operation and when in the second position it perform an opposite operation (Kritchever, Col. 4, lines 22-26). While the function performed by Kritchever is to reverse the rotation of the device this reads on the instant invention as the claimed first and second motions are also reversed rotation. As Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, and Perkins teaches that it is well known in the art to have switches that cause a device to move from the second position to the first position and move from the first position to the second position and Kritchever teaches that a toggle switch may be used to perform a reversed function. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the first and second switch taught by Perkins to instead be a single integral toggle switch as taught by Kritchever as making a single integral switch capable of moving between two positions to activate two motions would be a matter of routine choice for a worker in the art.
Finally, Ceroll teaches a power tool (Ceroll, Figs. 1-10, 100) comprising a switch (Ceroll, Fig. 2A, 114) and a cutting unit (Ceroll, Fig. 2A, 150), wherein a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion (Ceroll, Fig. 10, R2, P. 0080) is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion (Ceroll, Fig. 10, R1, P. 0080). This allows for the device to be quickly reset to perform another cut which enhances operator convenience and utility (Ceroll, P. 0080).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the cutting unit such that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion like the cutting unit taught by Ceroll as such a greater speed for the second motion allows for the device to be quickly reset to perform another cut which enhances operator convenience and utility.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 14, wherein a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 9-26).
Regarding claim 20, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 14, further comprising a battery pack (Scott, Fig. 2, 138) for powering the electric motor, wherein the electric motor is disposed in the casing (Scott, P. 0034), and the battery pack is disposed at a rear end of the casing (Scott, Fig. 2, 138).
Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll does not teach the battery pack is disposed at a lower side of the electric motor. The battery pack shown by Scott is in line with the motor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the electric pipe cutter taught by Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll such that the battery pack was disposed at a lower side of the electric motor or to be in any desirable positional relationship with the motor as it would only require routine skill in the art to select a position for the battery pack as such rearrangement of parts are routine in the art and changing the position of the battery pack would have no effect on the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 2010/0325894 A1) in view of Winkel (US 9,339,938 B2), Abbott (US 2019/0227528 A1), Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1), and Kritchever (US 5,496,672 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2013/0097873 A1), hereafter known as Luo.
Regarding claim 15, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 14, further comprising: a controller (Scott, P. 0034) capable of monitoring the operation of the device (Scott, P. 0034).
Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll does not teach wherein the controller determines or calculates input signals to control a rotation state of the electric motor and the input signals comprise at least the main switch state signal, the toggle switch state signal, or a position signal.
Luo teaches a electric pipe cutter (Luo, Figs. 3-9, 110) comprising a controller (Luo, Fig. 10, 400) capable of determining and calculating input signals to control a rotation state of the electric motor and input signals of different switches (Luo, P. 0054, 0057, 0074, and 0077). Such controllers and sensors allow for better monitoring of the device during functioning (Luo, P. 00026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the controller of Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever and Ceroll to determine or calculate input signals to control a rotation state of the electric motor and input signals of different switches taught by Luo to improve monitoring of the pipe cutter during use.
Regarding claim 16, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever, Ceroll, and Luo teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 15, wherein different combinations of the input signals correspond to different special working conditions of the electric pipe cutter (Luo, P. 0064, 0072, 0074, and 0077).
Regarding claim 17, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, Kritchever, Ceroll, and Luo teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 16, wherein the special working conditions comprise at least a shutdown working condition, a braking working condition, or a speed regulation working condition (Luo, P. 0064, 0072, 0074, and 0077).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1) in view of Winkel (US 9,339,938 B2), Wason (US 2013/0227843 A1), Abbott (US 2019/0227528 A1) and Ceroll (US 2020/0189017 A1).
Regard claim 22, Perkins teaches an electric pipe cutter (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 20), comprising:
a casing (Perkins, Figs. 1-3, 32, 40 and 44) comprising a support portion (Perkins, Figs. 1-7, 24);
a cutting unit (Perkins, Figs. 1-15, 28) for cutting a target object (Perkins, P. 0025), the cutting unit movably mounted to the support portion (Perkins, Fig. 7, 24 and 28, P. 0036);
a driving device (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30) coupled to the cutting unit (Perkins, P. 0025) for driving the cutting unit to move between a first cutting position and a second cutting position relative to the support portion (Perkins, P. 0027);
a transmission device (Perkins, Figs. 9-15, 166, 218, 350, 450, 650) coupling the driving device to the cutting unit, and the transmission device comprising a deceleration assembly (Perkins, Fig. 10, 190);
a toggle switch movable between a first toggle position and a second toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “forward” and “reverse”), while Perkins does not teach that the switch is specifically a toggle switch Perkins does teach that any of their actuators may be buttons, triggers, switches, sliders, or any other actuator (Perkins, P. 0027) and, further, the toggle switch taught by Perkins switches between two positions for a forward and reserve operation which reads on a toggle switch.
wherein, when the toggle switch is moved to the first toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “forward”), the cutting unit performs a first motion under an action of the driving device and the cutting unit moves from the second cutting position to the first cutting position to achieve a downward cutting action (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027),
when the second switch is moved into the second toggle position (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027, “reverse”), the cutting unit performs a second motion under the action of the driving device and the cutting unit moves from the first cutting position to the second cutting position to achieve an upward recovery action (Perkins, Figs. 2-4, 64, P. 0027);
Perkins does not teach a brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position and the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is at the second toggle position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position, so that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion and wherein when the toggle switch is moved from the first toggle position to the second toggle position the toggle switch outputs a signal to drive the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly and wherein the speed of the second motion is at least 3 times the speed of the first motion.
Winkel teaches an electric pipe cutter (Winkel, Figs. 1-11) comprising a toggle switch (Winkel, Figs. 1-5, 52) connected to a deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c) by a connecting rod (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 53) and a brake assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 43) connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c), such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 9-26). And when the toggle switch is in the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the second position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position (Winkle, Col. 4 line 53 – Col. 5 line 3). And when the toggle switch is moved from the first toggle position to the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly (Winkle, Col. 5, lines 18-26). Such an arrangement allows for manual selective activation and deactivation of the deceleration unit (Winkel, Col. 4, lines 38-52). Winkel shows that it is known in the art to have a toggle switch to activate and deactivate a deceleration assembly before initializing a downward cutting action or upward recovery action.
Wason teaches an electric pipe cutter (Wason, Figs. 1-13, 11) wherein the speed at which the cutting unit performs the upward cutting motion is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the downward cutting motion (Wason, P. 0003 and 0006). This allows for the unit to be quickly returned to the initial position to allow another cutting action (Wason, P. 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Perkins to include a brake assembly connected to a toggle switch by a connecting rod, the brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, the brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly, such that the brake assembly moves when the toggle switch moves between the first toggle position and the second toggle position, and when the toggle switch is in the second toggle position the toggle switch drives the brake assembly to act on the deceleration assembly so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the second position is smaller than the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly when the toggle switch is in the first toggle position as taught by Winkle such that a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion is greater than the speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motions as evidenced by Wason as such a modification allows for the selective activation and deactivation of a deceleration assembly.
Abbott teaches a hand tool (Abbott, Fig. 1, 105, P. 0081) comprising a switch (Abbott, Figs. 1 and 5A, 510 and 555) wherein the switch when moved from one position to another position outputs a signal indicative of the position of the switch (Abbott, P. 0128). Such a switch allows for the device to be controlled electronically (Abbott, P. 0128) instead of a manual or physically linked switch like those taught by Perkins and provides finer control for the device (Abbott, P. 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by Perkins such that the toggle switch output a signal like the switch taught by Abbott as such a switch allows finer controller of the device.
Finally, Ceroll teaches a power tool (Ceroll, Figs. 1-10, 100) comprising a switch (Ceroll, Fig. 2A, 114) and a cutting unit (Ceroll, Fig. 2A, 150), wherein a speed at which the cutting unit performs the second motion (Ceroll, Fig. 10, R2, P. 0080) is greater than a speed at which the cutting unit performs the first motion (Ceroll, Fig. 10, R1, P. 0080). This allows for the device to be quickly reset to perform another cut which enhances operator convenience and utility (Ceroll, P. 0080). While Ceroll does not teach to what extent the speed of the second motion is greater than the speed of the first motion it would be desirable to a worker in the art for the cutting unit to reset as fast as possible to allow for another cut, if physical constraints could be avoided it would have been desirable for this speed to be instantaneous. As such, given the physical constraints of the structures involved it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from ground up, to modify the speed of the second motion was greater than the speed of the first motion and such that this speed of the second motion was as fast as possible as it a matter of routine optimization of the device and would be desirable as to allow a user to make a second cut as quickly as possible after a first cut and to enhance operator convenience and utility.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that claims 4 and 14 have been amended such that they now overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejections of record.
The applicant asserts that the prior art of record used to reject claims 1 and 14 does not teach a comparison between the speed of the first motion and second motion. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claims an updated prior art rejection is provided above with the prior art of Ceroll which shows that it is well known in the art of power tools to perform the second motion at a greater speed than the first motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights