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 January 27, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 12 and 14 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. 102(a)(1) rejection has been overcome however a new rejection is provided herewith and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-14 currently pending and have been fully examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “physical stop surface on the gear system” (as in claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 13 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 2 discloses, “a longitudinal axis”. However, claim 1 already disclosed “a central longitudinal axis”. Thus, it is unclear if the recitation of the “a longitudinal axis” in claim 2 is the same axis as previously disclosed in claim 1 or if it is a different axis. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 13, discloses “a physical stop surface on the gear system” in Lines 1-2. However, it is unclear what structure forms the “physical stop surface”. Is the physical stop surface formed from teeth of the gear system? Is the physical stop surface formed as a collar or sleeve or even some other element located on rotation shaft (212)? If so, how does such an element stop the rotation shaft? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation, “a physical stop surface on the gear system” as being the teeth of the gear system. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-13 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Townsan (2008/0289843).
In reference to claim 1, Townsan discloses a working tool (Figures 2-3) comprising.
a tool head (30, Figure 3), and
an elongate shaft (51), the tool head being configured to articulate (i.e. pivot about 66) relative to the elongate shaft (paragraph 56), the elongate shaft comprising an articulating head connection comprising a housing (formed from 60 and 72, Figure 2, Figure 2) having a receiving section (see figure below), a pin channel (see figure below) and a pin (70) received in the pin channel (Figure 2), wherein the pin and the pin channel are offset (i.e. radially) from a central longitudinal axis (see figure below) of the elongate shaft,
the tool head comprising an articulating head attachment (i.e. formed as the right end of 30/68, Figures 2 and 3) configured to couple with the articulating head connection and having at least two receiving openings (at 104 in Figure 6 or see figure below) for receiving the pin,
the tool head further comprising a shaft for rotation (66) extending through the articulating head connection (Note; shaft 66 extends at least through opposing inner surfaces of housing 60 and 72, see figure below) and the articulating head attachment (see figure below), wherein the shaft forms an axis of rotation for the tool head (paragraph 56), wherein the shaft extends through the receiving section of the articulating head connection (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (At least two receiving openings)]
[AltContent: textbox (Pin channel)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Receiving section/space formed between opposing inner surfaces of housing 60 and 72 for receiving tool head 30 therein)][AltContent: textbox (Opposing inner surfaces of housing 60 and 72 that shaft 66 extends through)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central longitudinal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
420
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, As Best Understood, Townsan further discloses that the head rotates through a range of “at least 210 degrees”, (see paragraphs 47 and claim 26) thereby including the angle in a range from about -150° to about 150° from a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1) of the elongate shaft (Note, Figure 3 shows that the head (30/68) can rotate positively (i.e. to the left 210 degrees) or negatively (i.e. to the right 210 degrees, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 3, Townsan discloses that the tool head is configured to articulate relative to the elongate shaft between a plurality of positions spaced apart by an angle in a range from about 10 degrees to about 90 degrees (see Figure 3 showing various angles including from about 10 degrees [Note, 15 degrees is about 10 degrees] to about 90 degrees [Note, going from a fixed unrotated 0 degree position to a rotated 90 degree position includes an angle of 90 degrees]).
In reference to claim 4, Townsan discloses that the at least two receiving openings comprises from two to fifteen receiving openings (see Figure 6 showing at least two openings 104 and see Figure 7 showing 15 openings).
In reference to claim 5, Townsan discloses that each receiving opening corresponds to a relative angular position between the tool head and the elongate shaft (paragraph 62).
In reference to claim 6, Townsan discloses that each of the openings are equally spaced apart such that each relative angular position between the tool head and the elongate shaft is spaced apart by an equal angle (Figure 6).
In reference to claim 7, Townsan discloses that the articulating head connection further comprising a latch (at 116 see Figure 6 which corresponds to the latch shown in Figure 2, also see annotated figure below) coupled to the pin (Figure 2),
wherein in a locked position of the latch (see paragraphs 61, 63, 67 and 68), the pin is received in one of the receiving openings (104, Figure 6) of the articulating head connection, and in an unlocked position of the latch, the pin is displaced from each of the receiving openings such that the tool head is permitted to rotate about the shaft for rotation (see paragraphs 61, 63, 67 and 68).
[AltContent: textbox (Upper edge of shaft 51)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Latch body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
214
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 8, Townsan discloses that the latch comprises a latch body (again at 116 also see figure above) surrounding (The examiner notes that the definition of the term “surround” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “extends around the margin or edge of” [see definition 1d]. And, the definition of the term “around” is defined as being “along” [see definition 1b]. Since, element 116 “extends along the margin or edge [i.e. upper edge of 51 see Figure above] of ” shaft [51], it meets the definitions above and thus the limitation of the claim) the elongate shaft (51, Figure 2), a channel (i.e. inner opening of 116 that receives 70 therein, see Figure 6) formed in the latch body for receiving the pin, wherein the latch is configured to be biased (i.e. by spring 110, see Figure 6) the latch toward the locked position of the latch.
In reference to claim 9, Townsan discloses that the articulating head connection comprising a housing (formed from 60 and 72, Figure 2),
wherein the shaft for rotation extends through the housing (Note; shaft 66 extends at least through opposing inner surfaces of housing 60 and 72, see figure on page 5 above) of the articulating head connection, and a receiving opening (formed as the inner space between opposing inner surfaces of housing 60 and 72, Figure 2) surrounds the shaft for rotation (Figure 2),
further wherein the articulating head attachment comprises a housing (at 30 and/or 68, Figures 2 and 3),
wherein the shaft for rotation extends through the housing of the articulating head attachment (Figure 2),
wherein at least a portion (right end of 30/68) of the housing of the articulating head attachment is positioned within the receiving opening of the housing of the articulating head connection (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 10, Townsan discloses further comprising a motorized articulation mechanism (i.e. button 28 and motor 44) configured to drive articulation of the tool head relative to the elongate shaft, wherein the motorized articulation mechanism comprises a motor (44), a motor shaft (not labeled but shown in Figure 2 connecting motor 44 to gear 48 in Figure 2), and a gear system (formed from 48, 52, 58a-58c, 62 and 64) configured to couple the motor shaft to the shaft for rotation.
In reference to claim 11, Townsan discloses that the gear system comprises a bevel gear (i.e. at 48, Figure 2) system or a worm gear system (58a-58c, Figure 2).
In reference to claim 12, Townsan discloses further comprising at least one stop (i.e. from openings 104 or as best understood under a second interpretation is formed from inner surfaces of adjacent teeth of the gear system [48, 52, 58a-58c, 62 and 64]) configured to define articulation intervals of rotation of the tool head relative to the elongate shaft.
In reference to claim 13, As Best Understood, Townsan discloses the at least one stop comprises a physical stop surface on the gear system (formed from inner surfaces of adjacent teeth of the gear system [48, 52, 58a-58c, 62 and 64]) and/or at least one hall sensor to sense rotation of the shaft for rotation.
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 2, is also Finally rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsan (2008/0289843).
In further reference to claim 2, As Best Understood, Townsan further discloses that the head rotates through a range of “at least 210 degrees”, (see Figgure3, paragraph 47 and claim 26) thereby including the angle in a range from about -150° to about 150° from a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1) of the elongate shaft.
However, assuming arguendo that Townsan does not expressly disclose that;
the angle in a range from about -150° to about 150° than Townsan is further modified as discussed below.
The examiner notes that Townsan does teach that, “The user may wish to rotate even further then positive or -90.degree” (see paragraph 58).
Thus, Townsan teaches of providing additional angles of rotation (see paragraph 58) thereby teaching that the rotation angle can be optimized to “provide for rotational configuration as the user desires” (paragraph 59) and as such the rotation angle in the range from about -150° to about 150° is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the rotation angle changes the rotational configuration as the user desires (paragraph 59). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Townsan device to have a rotation angle within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the angle of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Townsan by making the rotating head rotating about an angle in a range from about -150° to about 150°, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (see paragraph 34) and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 5-150 degrees, see paragraph 34).
Claim 14, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsan (2008/0289843) in view Baskar et al. (7752760).
In reference to claim 14, Townsan discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a cable or wire extending continuously through the elongate shaft, the articulating head connection, the articulating head attachment, and into the tool head, the cable or wire configured to power or drive the tool head by a source distal from the tool head.
However, Baskar et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tool (100) comprising a cable or wire (formed from 170 and the cable/wire within 104, Figure 8) extending continuously through an elongate shaft (104), an articulating head connection (formed from 107, 144, 145 and 176), an articulating head attachment (164), and into a tool head (120), the cable or wire configured to power or drive the tool head by a source distal from the tool head.
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 device, of Townsan, with the known technique of providing the cable or wire extending continuously from the shaft to the tool head, as taught by Baskar et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides a source of electrical power and has an elongated boom that releasably engages with a coupling module of the power head (Column 2, Lines 21-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed January 27, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection using Baskar et al. as a base reference has been withdrawn.
The examiner further notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as applied above does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument. Note, while Baskar et al. has been used in section “10.” above for the teaching of the cable or wire, there are no arguments directed to Baskar et al. being used in such a teaching situation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the components of the articulating head connection in claim 1.
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