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
Upon consideration of the replacement drawings and the amended claims, all previous drawing objections and the rejection of Claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 1122(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 and 13 of the Remarks, that Latoria does not anticipate independent Claims 11 and 32 because the blade 26 is not a housing, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although it is true that blade 26 in and of itself does not meet the description provided by the Applicant for what is typically considered to be a “housing”, blade 26 is directly coupled to housing 12 and can therefore be considered to be an extension of the housing. Furthermore, even if the blade 26 could not be considered to be part of the housing, the claims as currently set forth do not require the output shaft to be directly coupled to the housing and extending therefrom; as bolt 86, i.e. the output shaft, is coupled to housing 12 via blade 26 and extends in a direction away from the housing 12, this limitation is therefore met by Latoria.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13 of the Remarks, that the amended Claims 24 and 28 are allowable over the prior art of record, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 24, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochman in view of Harvey in the Office action mailed 03/05/2026, has been amended to include the subject matter of Claim 17, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latoria, and Claim 28, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brochman, has been amended to include the subject matter of Claim 35, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latoria in view of Xiao. For each claim, Applicant argues that Latoria and/or Xiao do not teach the claimed limitations; however, both claims as currently set forth can still be rejected using Brochman as a primary reference. The claims do not require any specific structure for the guide support arm beyond a first end for coupling to the output shaft and a second end for coupling to the guide, with the first end including “an opening” and “an eccentric support”, both of which are very generic and as such can be interpreted very broadly. Brochman’s bearing wheel assembly 166, shown in detail in Figure 8, meets these limitations of the amended claims: the first end (bottom of assembly 166 in the view depicted in Figure 8) indirectly couples the assembly to the output shaft 132 as it is formed as part of the housing 112 ([0051] lns 20-22), to which the output shaft is also coupled; the second end (sliding member 180) is coupled to bearing wheel 108, i.e. the guide, and rotationally support it ([0051] lns 18-19); there is an open space, i.e. an opening, in between rails 182A and 182B at the first end; and threaded rods 176A/B, which are positioned within the opening at the first end, can be considered to be an “eccentric support”, as they are part of the structure which adjusts the distance of the bearing wheel 108 from the output shaft 132, i.e. supports the guide in a position eccentric to the output shaft (see para. [0051]).
With respect to Claim 24, no specific structure or function defining the term “selectively secured” has been provided, so the bearing wheel assembly 166 can be considered to be “selectively secured” to housing 112 as threaded rods 176A/B, sliding member 180, and driver 168 are separate components from rails 182A/B and therefore can be removed. As such, an operator can elect to secure these components to the housing so that the bearing wheel is fixed with respect to the housing during a loading and bending operation, and then un-secure the components (i.e. disassembly the assembly 166) when not in use.
The rejections of Claims 24 and 28 are therefore maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13 of the Remarks that Xiao does not teach the opening and eccentric support recited in Claim 35, Examiner notes that the amendment to Claim 35 correcting the 112(b) rejection and clarifying that said opening and eccentric support are located on the first end of the guide support arm, as opposed to the second end as had previously been recited, renders the arguments moot as Claim 35 can now be rejected with only Latoria and does not need the teachings of Xiao.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 14-17, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latoria (US 9,718,108, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 11, Latoria discloses (Figures 1-3 and 7-8) a power tool (bending tool 10) configured to bend conduit, the power tool comprising: a housing (assembly of portable drive housing 12 and blade 26); a motor supported by the housing (col. 3 lns 22-29: the conventional drive is interpreted as a motor); a user interface (trigger switch 20) for controlling the motor (col. 3 lns 25-27); an output shaft (bolt 86) coupled to the housing and including a first end extending from the housing, the output shaft being driven by the motor to rotate about an output axis (col. 4 lns 15-21: bolt 86 is driven to rotate with blade 26 via drive gear 18, which is driven by the drive, engaging driven gear teeth 82); a bender head (center guide 88) supported on the output shaft for rotation therewith (col. 4 lns 29-31), the bender head including a curved channel for receiving the conduit (col. 4 lns 32-34); and a guide (arm guide 96) coupled to the housing; wherein the bender head is rotatable relative to the guide between a first position, in which the conduit is positionable in and movable along the curved channel (see Figure 7; rod R is shown as positioned on the arm guide 96 and support guide 104, but it is also capable of being positionable in and movable along the curved channel of center guide 88 in the position shown), and a second position, in which the conduit is secured in the curved channel (col. 4 ln 60 – col. 5 ln 2: center guide 88 together with blade 26 is driven to rotate until rod R is secured between the curved channel of center guide 88 and arm guide 96).
Regarding Claim 12, Latoria discloses (Figures 7-8) the user interface includes a first actuator (trigger switch 20) for moving the bender head (center guide 88) from the first position to the second position (col. 4 ln 60 – col. 5 ln 2: pressing trigger switch 20 causes the center guide 88 together with blade 26 to move into the second position).
Regarding Claim 14, Latoria discloses (Figure 8) in the second position, the guide (arm guide 96) is configured to contact the conduit (rod R) to secure the conduit in the curved channel (clearly seen in figure).
Regarding Claim 15, Latoria discloses (Figure 7) in the first position, the guide (arm guide 96) is configured to be spaced from the conduit (rod R) positioned in the curved channel (based on the spacing in the figure, it is clear that if rod R is positioned in the curved channel of center guide 88, it will be spaced from arm guide 96).
Regarding Claim 16, Latoria discloses (Figures 1-3) the guide (arm guide 96) is mounted to a guide support arm (arm 28), the guide support arm having a first end (near end 90) mounted around the output shaft (bolt 86; col. 4 lns 11-12) and a second end (distal end 98) which receives the guide.
Regarding Claim 17, Latoria discloses (Figure 5) the guide support arm (arm 28) is selectively secured to the housing (assembly of portable drive housing 12 and blade 26) so that the guide (arm guide 96) is fixed with respect to the housing during a loading and bending operation (col. 4 lns 65-67: arm projection 108 of arm 28 engages blade edge 110 of blade 26 during a bending operation in such a way that arm 28 is fixed, i.e. stationary, relative to blade 26 as it rotates).
Regarding Claim 32, Latoria discloses (Figures 1-3 and 7-8) a power tool (bending tool 10) configured to bend conduit, the power tool comprising: a housing (assembly of portable drive housing 12 and blade 26); a motor positioned within the housing (col. 3 lns 22-29: the conventional drive is interpreted as a motor); an output shaft (bolt 86) extending from the housing and driven by the motor to rotate about an axis (col. 4 lns 15-21: bolt 86 is driven to rotate with blade 26 via drive gear 18, which is driven by the drive, engaging driven gear teeth 82); a bender head (center guide 88) coupled for rotation with the output shaft (col. 4 lns 29-31) and configured to engage a conduit (rod R) during the bending operation (col. 5 lns 1-4); a guide (arm guide 96) configured to support the conduit during the bending operation (seen in Figure 8); and a guide support arm (arm 28) configured to rotatably support the guide about the output shaft (col. 5 lns 23-25), the guide support arm being rotatably coupled to the output shaft such that the guide support arm is rotatable with respect to the axis (col. 5 lns 23-25).
Regarding Claim 33, Latoria discloses (Figure 5) a locking latch (arm projection 108) for selectively securing the guide support arm (arm 28) with respect to the housing (assembly of portable drive housing 12 and blade 26; col. 4 lns 65-67: arm projection 108 of arm 28 selectively engages blade edge 110 of blade 26 in such a way that arm 28 is secured to blade 26 as it rotates).
Regarding Claim 34, Latoria discloses (Figure 2) the guide support arm (arm 28) includes a first end (near end 90) for coupling to the output shaft (bolt 86) and a second end (distal end 98) for coupling to the guide (arm guide 96).
Regarding Claim 35, Latoria discloses (Figure 5) the first end (near end 90) includes an opening (col. 4 ln 12) and an eccentric support (nut 92) positioned within the opening (col. 4 lns 11-14: nut 92, which supports arm 28 to hold arm guide 96 at a position eccentric to bolt 86, is aligned with the opening in near end 90 and therefore is considered to be positioned within it).
Regarding Claim 36, Latoria discloses (Figure 5) the eccentric support (nut 92) is movable within the opening (col. 4 lns 11-14: nut 92 is used to secure bolt 86 in place, and is therefore movable within the opening in near end 90 of arm 28).
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brochman (US 2021/0387243, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 28, Brochman discloses (Figures 2A-E, 4B, 8, and 12A-B) a power tool configured to bend conduit (conduit bender 100’), the power tool comprising: a housing (housing 112); a motor (driver 102) positioned within the housing ([0038] lns 5-6); an output shaft (output shaft 132) extending from the housing and driven by the motor to rotate about an axis ([0042] lns 1-5); a bender head (bender shoe 106) coupled for rotation with the output shaft and configured to engage a conduit during a bending operation ([0043] lns 1-3); a guide (bearing wheel 108) coupled to the housing and configured to engage the conduit during the bending operation ([0051] lns 26-30); a guide support arm (bearing wheel assembly 166) configured to rotatably support the guide ([0051] lns 18-19), the guide support arm including a first end (bottom end of assembly 166 as depicted in the view shown by Figure 8) for coupling to the output shaft ([0051] lns 20-22: rails 182A/B are formed as part of housing 112, and therefore indirectly couple the assembly 166 to output shaft 132, which is also coupled to the housing 112) and a second end (sliding member 180) for coupling to the guide ([0051] lns 18-19), the first end including an opening (open space between rails 182A/B) and an eccentric support (threaded rods 176A/B) positioned within the opening (para. [0051]: threaded rods 176A/B, which are positioned within the opening at the first end, are part of the structure which adjusts the distance of the bearing wheel 108 from the output shaft 132, i.e. supports the guide in a position eccentric to the output shaft, and therefore are considered to be an “eccentric support”); and a stand (wheeled cart 220) coupled to the housing for supporting the housing above a support surface ([0066] lns 1-4: conduit bender 100’ can be mounted to wheeled cart 220 shown in Figures 12A-B), the stand including a battery receptacle for receiving a battery (battery pack 118) that provides power to the motor (battery pack 118 is received on the conduit bender 100’, which is in turn received by wheeled cart 220; therefore, wheeled cart 220 receives the battery pack 118 and thus is considered to comprise a battery receptacle).
Regarding Claim 29, Brochman discloses (Figures 2A-E and 12A-B) the housing (housing 112) is rotatably coupled to the stand (wheeled cart 220) for movement between a first position with the output shaft (output shaft 132) extending vertically (shown in Figure 12A), and a second position with the output shaft extending horizontally (shown in Figure 12B).
Regarding Claim 30, Brochman discloses (Figures 2A-B) a handle (handgrip 126) extending from the housing (housing 112).
Regarding Claim 31, Brochman discloses (Figures 2A-B) a user input (trigger 124) configured to control operation of the motor (drive 102; [0041] lns 3-7), the user input being positioned on the handle (handgrip 126).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latoria as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Brochman.
Regarding Claim 13, Latoria does not disclose the user interface including a second actuator for further rotating the bender head to bend the conduit; in Latoria the trigger switch 20 is used both to move the bender head into the second position and then to continue bending the conduit. In the same field of endeavor, Brochman teaches (Figures 2A-E) a power tool configured to bend conduit (portable conduit bender 100’) comprising a motor (driver 102), a user interface (trigger 124 and keypad 192) for controlling the motor, a bender head (bender shoe 106) supported on an output shaft (output shaft 132) for rotation therewith ([0043] lns 1-3), and a guide (bearing wheel 108), wherein the user interface includes a first actuator (trigger 124) and a second actuator (keypad 192) for further rotating the bender head relative to the guide to bend the conduit ([0057] lns 5-11: a user can input a desired bend angle on keypad 192, which is coupled to programmable controller 202, which in turn controls the motor to rotate the bending shoe 106 until the conduit has achieved the desired bend). This second actuator allows a user to input precise bend specifications ([0061] lns 4-9), which one skilled in the art would understand helps achieve more accurate bends as well as to automate the bending process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power tool disclosed by Latoria such that the user interface also includes a second actuator for further rotating the bender head relative to the guide from the second position to bend the conduit, as taught by Brochman, in order to automate and improve the accuracy of the bending operation.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochman (US 2021/0387243, provided by Applicant) in view of Harvey et al., hereinafter Harvey (US 10,378,739).
Regarding Claim 24, Brochman discloses (Figures 2A-E, 4B, 8, and 12A-B) a bending system configured to bend conduit, the system comprising: a power tool (conduit bender 100’) including a housing (housing 112), a guide support arm (bearing wheel assembly 166) coupled to the housing, a guide (bearing wheel 108) mounted to the guide support arm ([0051] lns 18-19), a motor (driver 102) positioned within the housing ([0038] lns 5-6), an output shaft (output shaft 132) extending from the housing and driven by the motor to rotate about an axis ([0042] lns 1-5), and a bender head (bender shoe 106) rotatably coupled to the output shaft ([0043] lns 1-3), wherein the guide support arm is selectively secured to the housing so that the guide is fixed with respect to the housing during a loading and bending operation (para. [0051]: sliding part 180, threaded rods 176A/B, and driver 168 are separate components from rails 182A/B, which are formed integrally with the housing 112, and therefore can be selectively secured thereto in order to fix bearing wheel 108 to the housing via its mounting upon sliding part 180); and a stand (wheeled cart 220) configured to support the power tool above a surface ([0066] lns 1-4: conduit bender 100’ can be mounted to wheeled cart 220 shown in Figures 12A-B).
Brochman does not disclose the stand having the claimed configuration. Harvey teaches (Figures 2 and 9) a stand configured to support an object (head assembly 26) above a surface, the stand including a center column (elongate body 14) extending between a first end (top end 30) and a second end (bottom end 34), the first end configured to couple to the object (col. 4 lns 54-57), a battery receptacle (recess 282) supported by the center column for receiving a battery (battery pack 274) to provide power to the object, and a set of legs (legs 142) coupled to the center column and configured to engage the surface. The shown head assembly 26 is interchangeable with a separate head assembly 60 (col. 4 lns 24-25), so the stand is capable of being configured to support different objects, and the battery used is of the kind used to power a power tool (col. 10 lns 38-42). Accordingly, the stand may be configured to support a power tool and provide power to the motor of the power tool. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bending system disclosed by Brochman by replacing the disclosed stand with that taught by Harvey, the stand including a center column extending between a first end and a second end, the first end configured to couple to the power tool, a battery receptacle supported by the center column for receiving a battery to provide power to the motor of the power tool, and a set of legs coupled to the center column and configured to engage the surface, to perform the same function of supporting the power tool above a surface.
Regarding Claim 25, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Brochman and Harvey, Harvey teaches (Figures 2 and 9) the battery receptacle (recess 282) is coupled to the second end (bottom end 34) of the center column (elongate body 14).
Regarding Claim 26, Brochman as modified by Harvey discloses the power tool is movable to different orientations relative to the stand (Brochman Figures 12A-B, [0067] lns 6-12; Harvey col. 4 lns 10-16).
Regarding Claim 27, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Brochman and Harvey, Harvey teaches (Figure 2) the set of legs includes three legs (legs 142) arranged as a tripod (clearly seen in figure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, alone or in combination, a power tool configured to bend conduit, comprising an output shaft driven to rotate about an axis, a guide configured to support the conduit during a bending operation, and a guide support arm configured to rotatably support the guide about the output shaft, the guide support arm being rotatably coupled to the output shaft such that the guide support arm is rotatable with respect to the axis, wherein the guide support arm includes a first end for coupling to the output shaft, wherein the first end includes an opening and an eccentric support positioned within the opening, wherein the eccentric support includes a plate having a central opening, wherein the central opening received the output shaft, and wherein rotation of the plate causes movement of the central opening with respect to the first end, together with the other limitations of the claim. In US 9,718,108 to Latoria, which is considered to be the most relevant prior art, the disclosed guide support arm does not have this type of eccentric support in its first end, and one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify it to include the claimed features. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claim 37 is allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights