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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on October 21, 2025. Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome however a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is provided herewith discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-21 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17-20 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 2019519388A, translation included herewith) in view of Ohtsu et al. (7216723) and Schell et al. (CN 201199679Y, translation included herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Foreign Reference discloses a method for operating a drywall screwdriver (see following portions of translation disclosing; “Power assisted tools for tightening bolts, screws or nuts are used in many applications.” and “Conventional power tools, such as today's nutrunners and screwdrivers, generally allow sensors such as angular encoders and/or torque meters to be able to control the quality of the work process being performed, such as tightening of joints. Prepare.”), the method comprising:
driving an electric motor (11) of the drywall screwdriver, wherein the electric motor is driven with a plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (see pulses in Figure 2 at A, B and C) and is configured to allow a user to influence a countersinking of a screw in a workpiece in individual pulses (see Abstract); and
manipulating a screwing tool (at 12 or the bit connected to 12 when the device is used as “screwdriver” for “screws”, see translation above) that is mechanically coupled to the electric motor, wherein the screwing tool is configured to engage with the screw by a predetermined angle of rotation (i.e. angular displacement threshold) with each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (see following portion of translation disclosing; “Based on the determination in step 307, in step 309, it is determined whether the angular displacement of the tool exceeds the predetermined threshold and the angular displacement is determined to exceed the predetermined threshold, and the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse. Next, the procedure returns to step 303 or proceeds to step 311. In step 311, it is determined whether the angular displacement is below a threshold. If the angular displacement is below the threshold, the energy of the new pulse can be increased (assuming there are no other constraints that limit the energy delivered in the next pulse)… In the above exemplary embodiment, the current value between each pulse is controlled based on the angular displacement.”),
wherein one of an amplitude (i.e. magnitude, see claim 2 and/or see following portion of translation disclosing; “the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse.”) and duration of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is determined in an exclusively path-controlled manner as a function of the predetermined angle of rotation (see following portion of translation disclosing; “Accordingly, pulse energy can be controlled to maintain angular velocity or angular acceleration within a predetermined limit value range. Also, some combination of limiting values can be made, and the pulse energy can be controlled to not exceed any of such limiting values. Additionally, pulse energy can also be controlled with respect to the measured pulse. For example, if the limit value is exceeded during the pulse, the energy delivered to the pulse can be shut off or reduced. Thereby, internal pulse control of parameters such as one or more of angular displacement, angular velocity, or angular acceleration of the tool can be realized.”) of the screwing tool.
Foreign Reference lacks,
each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses has a trapezoidal shape; and
the individual pulses are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 4.0 seconds.
However, Ohtsu et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses in a trapezoidal shape (see shape of pulses in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rectangular shaped pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the trapezoidal shaped pulses, as taught by Ohtsu et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows a driver to be cyclically or pulsatingly rotated for more effectively fastening a screw (Column 1, Lines 10-13).
Next, Schell et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses that are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 1.0 seconds (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the spacing time between the pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing a spacing time between pulses being between 0.1-1.0 second, as taught by Schell et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows the allow the operator to regain control to instrument).
Finally, while Schell et al. disclose the spacing between pulses in the range of 0.1-1.0 second. However, Schell et al. do not disclose the entire range of 1-4 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between pulses, of modified Foreign Reference, to have a spacing between pulses between 1-4 seconds, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Foreign Reference would not operate differently with the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses (i.e. 1-4 seconds) and would function appropriately having the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between pulses “can” be within the claimed ranges (see paragraph 71).
In reference to claims 2, 13 and 18, Foreign Reference discloses that one of an amplitude and duration of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is determined independently of a measured torque of the countersinking of the screw (see claim 3 disclosing; “The power tool according to claim 2, wherein the duration and / or magnitude of the current pulse is controlled based on the output signal from the angle sensor.”).
In reference to claim 4, Foreign Reference discloses that the predetermined angle of rotation is similar or substantially similar for all of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (because the same predetermined angle of rotation is used as the threshold, see following portion of translation disclosing; “Based on the determination in step 307, in step 309, it is determined whether the angular displacement of the tool exceeds the predetermined threshold and the angular displacement is determined to exceed the predetermined threshold, and the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse. Next, the procedure returns to step 303 or proceeds to step 311. In step 311, it is determined whether the angular displacement is below a threshold. If the angular displacement is below the threshold, the energy of the new pulse can be increased (assuming there are no other constraints that limit the energy delivered in the next pulse)… In the above exemplary embodiment, the current value between each pulse is controlled based on the angular displacement.
In reference to claim 5, Ohtsu et al. disclose that the respective trapezoidal shape of each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is substantially rectangular in shape (Figure 5) and comprises at least one of a ramp-shaped rise (i.e. left side of pulse in Figure 5) and/or and a ramp-shaped fall (i.e. right side of pulse in Figure 5).
In reference to claim 6, Foreign Reference shows that each of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is equally spaced in duration (Figure 2). Also, Ohtsu et al. disclose that each of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is equally spaced in duration (Figure 5 and note, when the tool is operated at a same speed, the interval therebetween between would be the same).
In reference to claims 7, 14 and 19, Foreign Reference lacks,
the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses are spaced apart from one another by intervals that span anywhere between 0.5 seconds and 2.0 seconds in duration.
However, Schell et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses that are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 1.0 seconds (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the spacing time between the pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing a spacing time between pulses being between 0.1-1.0 second, as taught by Schell et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows the allow the operator to regain control to instrument).
Finally, while Schell et al. disclose the spacing between pulses in the range of 0.1-1.0 second. However, Schell et al. do not disclose the entire range of 1-2 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between pulses, of modified Foreign Reference, to have a spacing between pulses between 1-2 seconds, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Foreign Reference would not operate differently with the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses (i.e. 1-2 seconds) and would function appropriately having the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between pulses “can” be within the claimed ranges (see paragraph 71).
In reference to claims 8, 15 and 20, Foreign Reference discloses that, measured values of a position sensor (i.e. angle sensor, see following portion of translation; “the power tool comprises an angle sensor for detecting parameters associated with the angular displacement of the power tool.”) of the electric motor are used to detect the predetermined angle of rotation of the screwing tool, and wherein the position sensor is configured to detect a change in position of a rotor (20) of the electric motor relative to a stator (21) of the electric motor.
In reference to claim 10, Schell et al. disclose that influencing the countersinking of the screw in the workpiece is based at least in part on adjusting a time spacing (because a time of 0.1 seconds could be selected or a time of 1.0 seconds could be selected) of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses, and wherein adjusting the time spacing allows the user of the drywall screwdriver further control over a screw-in depth of the screw in the workpiece (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”). In addition, Ohtsu et al. also disclose that it is known to influence the countersinking of the screw in the workpiece is based at least in part on adjusting a time spacing (i.e. 0.01 and 0.05 sec. see Column 5, Lines 3-4) of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses, and wherein adjusting the time spacing allows the user of the drywall screwdriver further control over a screw-in depth of the screw in the workpiece (Column 5, Lines 1-7).
In reference to claim 11, Foreign Reference discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium (i.e. computer program in claim 10) having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors (i.e. computer) to perform a method for operating a drywall screwdriver (see claim 10), the method comprising:
receiving, via a control device (16), an input (23) from a user to direct the drywall screwdriver; and
transmitting, via the control device, a control command signal, wherein the control command signal is configured to:
instruct an electric motor (11) of the drywall screwdriver to transmit a plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (see pulses in Figure 2 at A, B and C) to a screwing tool (at 12 or the bit connected to 12 when the device is used as “screwdriver” for “screws”, see translation above) coupled to the electric motor, wherein the electric motor is configured to be driven with the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses and thereby allow the user to influence a countersinking of a screw in a workpiece (see Abstract); and
execute, via the screwing tool, the countersinking of the screw, wherein the screwing tool is configured to manipulate the screw by a predetermined angle of rotation (i.e. angular displacement threshold) with each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (Figure 2 and see following portion of translation disclosing; “Based on the determination in step 307, in step 309, it is determined whether the angular displacement of the tool exceeds the predetermined threshold and the angular displacement is determined to exceed the predetermined threshold, and the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse. Next, the procedure returns to step 303 or proceeds to step 311. In step 311, it is determined whether the angular displacement is below a threshold. If the angular displacement is below the threshold, the energy of the new pulse can be increased (assuming there are no other constraints that limit the energy delivered in the next pulse)… In the above exemplary embodiment, the current value between each pulse is controlled based on the angular displacement);
wherein one of an amplitude (i.e. magnitude, see claim 2 and/or see following portion of translation disclosing; “the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse.”) and duration of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is determined in an exclusively path-controlled manner as a function of the predetermined angle of rotation (see following portion of translation disclosing; “Accordingly, pulse energy can be controlled to maintain angular velocity or angular acceleration within a predetermined limit value range. Also, some combination of limiting values can be made, and the pulse energy can be controlled to not exceed any of such limiting values. Additionally, pulse energy can also be controlled with respect to the measured pulse. For example, if the limit value is exceeded during the pulse, the energy delivered to the pulse can be shut off or reduced. Thereby, internal pulse control of parameters such as one or more of angular displacement, angular velocity, or angular acceleration of the tool can be realized.”) of the screwing tool.
Foreign Reference lacks,
each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses has a trapezoidal shape; and
the individual pulses are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 4.0 seconds.
However, Ohtsu et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses in a trapezoidal shape (see shape of pulses in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rectangular shaped pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the trapezoidal shaped pulses, as taught by Ohtsu et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows a driver to be cyclically or pulsatingly rotated for more effectively fastening a screw (Column 1, Lines 10-13).
Next, Schell et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses that are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 1.0 seconds (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the spacing time between the pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing a spacing time between pulses being between 0.1-1.0 second, as taught by Schell et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows the allow the operator to regain control to instrument).
Finally, while Schell et al. disclose the spacing between pulses in the range of 0.1-1.0 second. However, Schell et al. do not disclose the entire range of 1-4 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between pulses, of modified Foreign Reference, to have a spacing between pulses between 1-4 seconds, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Foreign Reference would not operate differently with the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses (i.e. 1-4 seconds) and would function appropriately having the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between pulses “can” be within the claimed ranges (see paragraph 71).
In reference to claim 17, Foreign Reference discloses a drywall screwdriver (see following portions of translation disclosing; “Power assisted tools for tightening bolts, screws or nuts are used in many applications.” and “Conventional power tools, such as today's nutrunners and screwdrivers, generally allow sensors such as angular encoders and/or torque meters to be able to control the quality of the work process being performed, such as tightening of joints. Prepare.”), comprising:
an electric motor (11) configured to facilitate a countersinking of a screw in a workpiece;
a screwing tool (at 12 or the bit connected to 12 when the device is used as “screwdriver” for “screws”, see translation above) mechanically coupled to the electric motor and configured to removably engage with the screw; and
a control device (16) configured to receive and translate instructions from a user and direct, via a control command signal, operation of the electric motor (see following portion of translation disclosing; “The control unit 16 is configured to control the electric motor 11. In the illustrated embodiment, the control unit 16 is integrated in the tool 10. However, the control unit can also be located in the external unit and connected to the tool 10 in a wired or wireless manner. The sensors 14, 15, 25 may be configured to provide information to the control unit 16 typically regarding monitored parameters. This is a common practice in controlled clamping operations, wherein the clamping is controlled towards a specific target value, such as a target torque, an angle or a clamping force.”),
wherein the control command signal is configured to instruct the electric motor to transmit a plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (Figure 2) to the screwing tool to facilitate the countersinking of the screw (see following portion of translation disclosing; “The control unit 16 is configured to control the electric motor 11.”), and
wherein the screwing tool is configured to countersink the screw by a predetermined angle of rotation (i.e. angular displacement threshold) with each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses (see following portion of translation disclosing; “Based on the determination in step 307, in step 309, it is determined whether the angular displacement of the tool exceeds the predetermined threshold and the angular displacement is determined to exceed the predetermined threshold, and the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse. Next, the procedure returns to step 303 or proceeds to step 311. In step 311, it is determined whether the angular displacement is below a threshold. If the angular displacement is below the threshold, the energy of the new pulse can be increased (assuming there are no other constraints that limit the energy delivered in the next pulse)… In the above exemplary embodiment, the current value between each pulse is controlled based on the angular displacement.”),
wherein one of an amplitude (i.e. magnitude, see claim 2 and/or see following portion of translation disclosing; “the pulse energy of the pulse is determined. Reduce. Such a scenario is illustrated by pulse B in FIG. 2, which has limited energy compared to the previous pulse.”) and duration of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses is determined in an exclusively path-controlled manner as a function of the predetermined angle of rotation (see following portion of translation disclosing; “Accordingly, pulse energy can be controlled to maintain angular velocity or angular acceleration within a predetermined limit value range. Also, some combination of limiting values can be made, and the pulse energy can be controlled to not exceed any of such limiting values. Additionally, pulse energy can also be controlled with respect to the measured pulse. For example, if the limit value is exceeded during the pulse, the energy delivered to the pulse can be shut off or reduced. Thereby, internal pulse control of parameters such as one or more of angular displacement, angular velocity, or angular acceleration of the tool can be realized.”) of the screwing tool.
Foreign Reference lacks,
each individual pulse of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses has a trapezoidal shape; and
the individual pulses are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 4.0 seconds.
However, Ohtsu et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses in a trapezoidal shape (see shape of pulses in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rectangular shaped pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the trapezoidal shaped pulses, as taught by Ohtsu et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows a driver to be cyclically or pulsatingly rotated for more effectively fastening a screw (Column 1, Lines 10-13).
Next, Schell et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide individual pulses that are spaced between 0.1 seconds and 1.0 seconds (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the spacing time between the pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing a spacing time between pulses being between 0.1-1.0 second, as taught by Schell et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows the allow the operator to regain control to instrument).
Finally, while Schell et al. disclose the spacing between pulses in the range of 0.1-1.0 second. However, Schell et al. do not disclose the entire range of 1-4 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between pulses, of modified Foreign Reference, to have a spacing between pulses between 1-4 seconds, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Foreign Reference would not operate differently with the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses (i.e. 1-4 seconds) and would function appropriately having the entire range of the claimed spacing between pulses. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between pulses “can” be within the claimed ranges (see paragraph 71).
Claims 9, 16 and 21 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 2019519388A, translation included herewith) in view of Ohtsu et al. (7216723), Schell et al. (CN 201199679Y, translation included herewith) and Kaufmann (DE 102013108721, previously cited).
In reference to claim 9, Foreign Reference discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the electric motor being a brushless direct current motor.
However, Kaufmann teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar screwdriver with an electric motor formed as a brushless direct current motor (see following portion of translation for disclosing, “The EC motor shown here is a brushless DC motor (BLDC motor)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the motor, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the brushless direct current motor, as taught by Kaufmann, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a motor that more effectively produces different pulse strengths (“DC motor is basically possible to produce different pulse strengths”).
In reference to claims 16 and 21, Foreign Reference discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the electric motor being a brushless direct current motor.
However, Kaufmann teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar screwdriver with an electric motor formed as a brushless direct current motor (see following portion of translation for disclosing, “The EC motor shown here is a brushless DC motor (BLDC motor)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the motor, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the brushless direct current motor, as taught by Kaufmann, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a motor that more effectively produces different pulse strengths (“DC motor is basically possible to produce different pulse strengths”).
In further reference to claims 16 and 21, Schell et al. disclose that influencing the countersinking of the screw in the workpiece is based at least in part on adjusting a time spacing (because a time of 0.1 seconds could be selected or a time of 1.0 seconds could be selected) of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses, and wherein adjusting the time spacing allows the user of the drywall screwdriver further control over a screw-in depth of the screw in the workpiece (see following portion of translation disclosing; “controlling schemes will be applied…, thereby make time between the pulse (for example 0.1-1.0 second) to allow the operator to regain control to instrument.”). And, Ohtsu et al. also disclose that it is known to influence the countersinking of the screw in the workpiece is based at least in part on adjusting a time spacing (i.e. 0.01 and 0.05 sec. see Column 5, Lines 3-4) of the plurality of temporally spaced individual pulses, and wherein adjusting the time spacing allows the user of the drywall screwdriver further control over a screw-in depth of the screw in the workpiece (Column 5, Lines 1-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to amended claims 1, 11 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17 as provided in the Non-final office action filed on July 22, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant also contends that, “Additionally, Ohtsu's pulse shapes are used in a magnetic fluid coupling system for cyclically rotating a driver, which operates on entirely different mechanical principles than Kaufmann's PWM-controlled direct motor drive. One of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Ohtsu's magnetic coupling pulse shapes with Kaufmann's PWM control system because they serve different purposes in fundamentally different drive mechanisms.”
However, the examiner respectively disagrees with this statement. While, no arguments are made with respect to Foreign Reference ‘388 in view of Ohtsu et al. ‘723, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rectangular shaped pulses, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the trapezoidal shaped pulses, as taught by Ohtsu et al., because both are directed to rotating screws (see “Power assisted tools for tightening bolts, screws or nuts are used in many applications.” and “Conventional power tools, such as today's nutrunners and screwdrivers, generally allow sensors such as angular encoders and/or torque meters to be able to control the quality of the work process being performed, such as tightening of joints. Prepare.” in Foreign Reference ‘388, and see Column 1, Lines 10-13, of Ohtsu et al. ‘723.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, the spacing time between pulses has been added in the independent claims.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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 J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights