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 Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3, 12-13, and 19 and the addition of claim 21.
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(b)
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 4, 14-18, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim states “the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly is zero when the toggle switch is at the second toggle position” in lines 3-5 of the claim. In claim 1, from which the claim depends, it states “when the toggle switch is moved to the fourth second toggle position, 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” in lines 18-21 of the claim. It is unclear how a reduction ratio is zero but allows for the cutting unit to move as a reduction ratio of zero would stop or prevent movement of the cutting unit. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the limitation as requiring the deceleration assembly to be disengaged or the deceleration assembly not providing a reduction ratio.
Regarding claim 14, the claim states “a toggle switch state signal” in lines 12 and 18. It is unclear from the claim if the toggle switch state signals referenced by the claim are the same signal or two separate signals or alternative signals as in the toggle switch outputs one or the other signal. If the Applicant intends there to be two toggle switch state signal, the claim should recite a first signal and a second signal or otherwise provide the two signals with unique names. The fact that the two signals introduced in claim 14 have the same exact name suggests that Applicant may intend to only introduce a single signal. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the toggle switch state signals are being the same signal.
Further, the claim states “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 reduced so that the cutting unit quickly resets” in lines 19-21. It is unclear how the toggle switch would be reduced. It is not known if these is meant to refer to an action or position of the toggle switch or some deformation the switch undergoes. As this limitation has not been previously claimed is it not known as to what action this refers. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the limitation to be “… so that a reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly is reduced when the toggle switch is toggled…”.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, these claims are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph due to their dependency on claim 14.
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, 4-9, 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), and Wason (US 2013/0227843 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).
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.
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). 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.
Regarding claim 2, Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason 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 4, Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 2.
Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason as modified does not teach wherein the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly is non-zero when the toggle switch is at the first toggle position and the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly is zero when the toggle switch is at the second toggle position.
Winkle further teaches an electric pipe cutter wherein the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly (Winkel, Figs. 4-5, 38 and 38c) is non-zero when the toggle switch (Winkel, Figs. 1-5, 52) is at the first toggle position (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 12-18) and the reduction ratio of the deceleration assembly is zero when the toggle switch is at the second toggle position (Winkel, Col. 5, lines 12-18). Such a ratio allows for high 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 to modify the deceleration assembly taught by Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason such that the reduction ratio of the assembly was non-zero at a first toggle position and zero at a second toggle position as further taught by Winkle as doing so allows the device to apply higher torque during cutting.
Regarding claim 5, Perkins in view of Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason teaches the electric pipe cutter of claim 1, wherein the driving device (Perkins, Figs. 9-10, 30) comprises an electric motor (Perkins, P. 0025), 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), and the cutting unit is driven to move from the first cutting position to the second cutting position when the electric motor reverses (Perkins, P. 0053).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins in view of Perkins in view of Winkle and Wason 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 and Wason 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 and Wason 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 and Wason 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 and Wason 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), and Wason (US 2013/0227843 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 and Wason 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 and Wason 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 and Wason 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, and Wason 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, and Wason 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 and Wason 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 et al. (US 2019/0227528 A1), Perkins (US 2018/0272445 A1), and Kritchever (US 5,496,672 A).
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 perform forward rotation; that the pipe cutter comprises a toggle switch, 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, and a brake assembly connecting the toggle switch to the deceleration assembly and that moves under the action of the toggle switch and wherein 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 reduced so that the cutting unit quickly resets.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Scott in view of Winkel, Abbot, Perkins, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, and Kritchever 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, 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, 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).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the cancelation of claim 15 overcomes the drawing objection of record, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation record, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph indefiniteness rejection of record for the claim. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the drawing objection, the interpretation of record and the indefiniteness rejection of record. However, it should be noted that if the “detection unit” is amended back into a future version of the claims the objections, interpretations, and infiniteness rejection of record regarding the limitation will still apply.
The applicant asserts that with the cancelation of claim 12 the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation prior art rejection of record of claim 12 should be withdrawn The Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection of record for claim 12.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1 and 14 overcome the respective 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejections of record due to the amendments to the claims. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim the Examiner has provided prior art rejections handling the amended claims above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724