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 Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments, the previous rejections are maintained. All arguments and amendments are fully addressed herein.
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, 10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US2014/0331831) in view of McCallops (US 5,473,519).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a tool having a handle portion with opposing first and second ends, a head portion proximal to the first end, and a drive extending from the head portion, wherein the drive is adapted to apply torque to a work piece that has a target amount of torque or angle that should be applied to the work piece, the tool comprising:
a sensor (Paragraph 24) adapted to measure at least one of an amount of torque and an amount of angle applied to the work piece;
a user interface (Items 125 and 120; Paragraph 26) coupled to the handle portion between the first and second ends; and
an illuminating indicators, including a first indicator, (Item 130 Paragraph 28) located near the head portion including a first indicator adapted to illuminate to indicate when a preset measured amount of torque or angle has been applied to the work piece (Paragraphs 30, 34, 39 and 40).
King fails to explicitly disclose a light ring circumferentially disposed around a longitudinal axis of the tool and are oriented to face in a direction away from the head portion and towards the handle portion
McCallops teaches a tool with opposing first and second ends (Annotated Figure 1) wherein a light ring (Figure 1 Item 30) circumferentially disposed around a longitudinal axis of the tool and between the first end of the handle portion and the head portion (Item 17), wherein the light ring includes illuminating indicators and the light ring is oriented to face in a direction away from the head portion and towards the handle portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator lights of King with the light ring of McCallops. The discrete LEDs located in a single position limits the viewing angle by the user. The light ring and the location near the tool head would allow the user to easily see a notification being displayed by the tool (Column 1 Lines 1-26).
PNG
media_image1.png
807
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 - McCallops
Regarding claim 2, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the first indicator illuminates with a first color at a first flashing rate when a first preset measured amount of torque or angle is applied to the work piece (King Paragraphs 40-41).
Regarding claim 10, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the first indicator illuminates a yellow light (King Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 13, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the tool is an in-line ratcheting tool (King Paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 15, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a display and a button (King Item 125 and 120).
Regarding claim 16, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the user interface is adapted to receive a torque tolerance amount or range to be applied to the target amount of torque (Paragraph 49 and figure 9).
Regarding claim 17, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the user interface is adapted to receive an angle tolerance amount or range to be applied to the target amount of angle (King figure 9).
Claims 3-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US20140331831) in view of McCallops (US 5473,519) in view of Hazet (DE 202009002124).
Regarding claim 3, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 2 wherein the first preset measured amount of torque or angle is about 40% of the target amount of torque or angle that is to be applied to the work piece (King Paragraphs 40-41). (King does not disclose one of the yellow lights to flash).
Hazet teaches a torque tool wherein a first color at a first flashing rate when a first measured amount of torque or angle is applied to the work piece by the tool (“The optical signals can hereby be realized according to the traffic light principle, with each torque range a different color is assigned. For example, the speed range below the maximum torque due to yellow light, the area of the maximum torque by green light and the exceeding of the maximum set torque signaled by red light become. Likewise, it is conceivable the brightness of the optical signals to vary so that the maximum intensity after crossing the maximum specified torque is displayed. About that In addition, it is conceivable to the flashing frequency of the optical signals vary, so from a slow blinking frequency to a Continuous light shows the respective torque or rotation angle progress becomes.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the illumination type of the indicators of King to flash as taught by Hazet. Such a modification would allow the user to further understand how close to the next indication limit they would be (at 35% it would flash quicker than 31%). Thus the user would more easily be able to view the information being conveyed by the tool (as modified by McCallops), and the tool would be able to convey more information due to the flashing lights.
Regarding claim 4, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 2. King fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first indicator illuminates with the first color at a second flashing rate, greater than the first flashing rate, when a second preset measured amount of torque or angle has been applied to the work piece.
Hazet teaches a torque tool wherein the first indicator illuminates with the first color at a second flashing rate, greater than the first flashing rate, when a second preset measured amount of torque or angle has been applied to the work piece (“The optical signals can hereby be realized according to the traffic light principle, with each torque range a different color is assigned. For example, the speed range below the maximum torque due to yellow light, the area of the maximum torque by green light and the exceeding of the maximum set torque signaled by red light become. Likewise, it is conceivable the brightness of the optical signals to vary so that the maximum intensity after crossing the maximum specified torque is displayed. About that In addition, it is conceivable to the flashing frequency of the optical signals vary, so from a slow blinking frequency to a Continuous light shows the respective torque or rotation angle progress becomes.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the illumination type of the indicators of King to flash as taught by Hazet. Such a modification would allow the user to further understand how close to the next indication limit they would be (at 35% it would flash quicker than 31%). Thus the user would more easily be able to view the information being conveyed by the tool (as modified by McCallops), and the tool would be able to convey more information due to the flashing lights.
Regarding claim 5, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 4, wherein the second preset measured amount of torque or angle is about 60% of the target amount of torque or angle that is to be applied to the work piece (King Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 6, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 4, wherein the first indicator illuminates with the first color at a solid state when a third measured amount of torque or angle has been applied to the work piece (Hazet “the flashing frequency of the optical signals vary, so from a slow blinking frequency to a Continuous light shows the respective torque or rotation angle progress becomes”).
Regarding claim 7, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 6, wherein the third preset measured amount of torque or angle is about 80% of the target amount of torque or angle that is to be applied to the work piece (King Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 8, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 6, wherein the illuminating indicators includes a second indicator adapted to illuminate with a second color different than the first color at a solid state when a fourth measured amount of torque or angle applied to the work piece is about 100% of the target amount of torque or angle that is to be applied to the work piece (King Paragraph 28; green).
Regarding claim 9, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 8, wherein the illuminating indicators includes a third indicator adapted to illuminate with a third color different than the first and second colors at a solid state when the measured amount of torque or angle applied to the work piece is greater than the target amount of torque or angle that is to be applied to the work piece (King Paragraph 28 and 41).
Regarding claim 11, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 8, wherein the first color is a yellow color and the second color is a green color (King Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 12, King in view of McCallops in view of Hazet disclose the tool of claim 9, wherein the first color is a yellow color, the second color is a green color, and the third color is a red color (King Paragraph 28).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US20140331831) in view of McCallops (US 5,473,519) in view of Backhaus (US2014/0069211).
Regarding claim 14, King in view of McCallops disclose the tool of claim 1. King fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tool is a torque screwdriver.
Backhaus teaches a torque tool wherein the tool is a torque screwdriver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tool head to be a screw driver as taught by Backhaus. Ratcheting tools and screwdrivers are both known tool that are commonly used in different scenarios. A screwdriver would be used in a narrow opening when a small amount of torque is required. While the ratchet tool of King is commonly used when more space is available and typically has a wider torque range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the light band 25 of McCallops is formed in a recess and is not oriented in any way to face in a direction away from the head portion and towards the handle portion as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant Application, its discussed (Para 20) the light ring has a plurality of indicators, and “the light ring 106 may be angled or oriented to face in a direction towards a rear of the body 102”. When looking to Figure 3, its shown as Item 106 as being a drawn in item that appears to be a cover. It is very common for indicators to have a cover over them to protect them from environmental elements, as well as to disperse light. Thus both McCallops and the instant application have a plurality of indicators covered by a translucent body or as McCallops calls it, a lens. The translucent bodies are both angled away from the tool head. The Examiner has annotated the two figures side by side to show the extremely similar configurations.
PNG
media_image2.png
244
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues the Examiner misunderstands what is claimed and relies on lens 30 of McCallops, not the light band in forming the rejection. “What is claimed is a light ring, which includes illuminating indicators, and the light ring is oriented to face in a direction away from the head portion towards the handle portion. The lens 30 of McCallops is not a light ring that includes indicators”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the light ring of the instant application is the same as the lens of McCallops. They are both ring shaped objects that protect illuminating indicators. Both light rings are angled in a manner away from the tool head, and prevent light from going towards the tool head by a vertical rear wall. Since the prior art and the instant application have the same structure, they would produce the same results.
Applicant argues the Examiner’s position relies upon the light band and the horizontal/rear wall, which is not part of the claim. The Examiner acknowledges the claims are only directed toward the light ring directing the light. The Examiner brings up the wall to help explain the Office’s position. As discussed above, since the light rings of the instant application and McCallops have the same structure, they would perform in a similar manner.
PNG
media_image4.png
466
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723