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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I including claims 1-13 in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 31, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotation controller configured to…” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the rotation controller” as being, “a rotation circuit” (see paragraph 32). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a rotation controller”, is being interpreted as a rotation circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a calculator configured to…” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the calculator” as being, “a calculation circuit” (see paragraph 32). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a calculator”, is being interpreted as a circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a deceleration controller to…” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the deceleration controller” as being, “a circuit” (see paragraph 32). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a deceleration controller”, is being interpreted as a deceleration control circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a count variable determiner configured to…” in claim 3. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the count variable determiner” as being, “a determination circuit” (see paragraph 57). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a count variable determiner”, is being interpreted as a determination circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an integrator configured to…” in claim 3. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the integrator” as being, “an integration circuit or an accumulating circuit or cumulatively adding circuit” (see paragraph 57). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “an integrator”, is being interpreted as an integration circuit or an accumulating circuit or cumulatively adding circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a speed setter configured to…” in claim 5. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the speed setter” as being, “a speed setting circuit” (see paragraph 66). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a speed setter”, is being interpreted as a speed setting circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an impact detector configured to…” in claim 6. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the impact detector” as being, “an impact detection circuit” (see paragraph 72). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “an impact detector”, is being interpreted as an impact detection circuit and/or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 are 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 1 discloses, “a calculator configured to (i) increase a determination value in accordance with a lapse of time from a first timing, and (ii) vary a rate of increase in the determination value in accordance with a speed parameter”. However, it is unclear what parameter forms the determination value. Is the determination value merely a value of time? Is it a value representing a speed parameter? Is it a value of motor torque? Is it a value of motor current? Since, the determination value is unclear, it is also unclear how the calculator “increase[s] a determination value”. In other words, after a lapse of time from a first timing, what value is being “increased”? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 2 discloses, “calculator is configured to decrease the rate of increase as the speed parameter decreases.” However, it is unclear how the calculator can decrease a rate of increase. For example, if a rate of increase has been decreased, than wouldn’t it be a rate of decrease? The examiner recommends clarifying what the calculator decreases in order to prevent any confusion in understanding the limitation.
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 rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (2013/0014967).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Ito et al. disclose an electric power tool (Figure 1) comprising:
a motor (3);
an output shaft (31 and 51) configured to (i) attach a tool bit thereto (i.e. within 51a), and (ii) receive a rotational force of the motor to thereby rotate in a first tool rotation direction or a second tool rotation direction together with the tool bit (paragraph 25), the second tool rotation direction being opposite to the first tool rotation direction, the tool bit being configured to (i) tighten a fastener to a fastened material based on the tool bit being rotated in the first tool rotation direction, and (ii) loosen the fastener from the fastened material based on the tool bit being rotated in the second tool rotation direction (paragraph 30);
a drive circuit (72) configured to supply an electric power to the motor to thereby rotate the motor (paragraphs 10 and 91);
a rotation controller (i.e. rotation circuit 68, which meets the limitation of the rotation controller, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) configured to rotate the motor via the drive circuit so that the output shaft rotates in the second tool rotation direction (paragraph 92);
a calculator (i.e. calculation circuit 67, which meets the limitation of the calculator, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) configured to (i) increase a determination value (i.e. “output signals” see paragraph 91 or current or speed see paragraph 199) in accordance with a lapse of time from a first timing (i.e. start operation, paragraphs 89 and 111), and (ii) vary a rate of increase in the determination value (see paragraph 111) in accordance with a speed parameter (i.e. a speed of the motor, paragraph 199), the first timing arriving after the rotation controller starts rotating the motor so that the output shaft rotates in the second tool rotation direction (i.e. “In S608 the control unit 72 alternately applies a forward rotation voltage and a reverse rotation voltage to the motor 3” in paragraph 112 and also see paragraphs 92, 93, 100, 104, 111-114, 121-124, 129, 131, 133, 153, 199), the speed parameter being related to a rotation speed of the motor (paragraph 199); and
a deceleration controller (i.e. deceleration control circuit 72, which meets the limitation of the deceleration controller, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6c above) configured to decelerate or stop the motor (paragraph 111) via the drive circuit based on the determination value having reached a threshold value (i.e. target current T, paragraph 113).
In reference to claim 2, As Best Understood, Ito et al. disclose that the calculator is configured to decrease the rate of increase as the speed parameter decreases (paragraphs 111 and 119-122).
In reference to claim 3, Ito et al. disclose that the calculator includes: a count variable determiner (i.e. determination circuit 72, which meets the limitation of the deceleration count variable determiner, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6d above) configured to determine a count variable (i.e. rate of increase, paragraph 108) at each second timing based on the speed parameter at the second timing, the second timing repeatedly arriving in accordance with the lapse of time, the count variable being equivalent to the rate of increase (paragraph 108); and an integrator (i.e.
an integration circuit 72 or an accumulating circuit 72 or cumulatively adding circuit 67, which meets the limitation of the integrator, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6e above) configured to integrate the count variable determined by the count variable determiner to thereby calculate the determination value at each of the second timings.
In reference to claim 4, Ito et al. disclose that the count variable determiner is configured to decrease the count variable as the speed parameter decreases (paragraphs 111 and 119-122).
In reference to claim 5, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a speed setter (i.e. 67 speed setting circuit 72, which meets the limitation of the speed setter, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6f above) configured to set a command rotation speed, wherein the rotation controller is configured to rotate the motor at the command rotation speed set by the speed setter, and the speed parameter includes the command rotation speed (paragraph 91).
In reference to claim 6, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a hammering mechanism (42) configured to (i) transmit the rotational force of the motor to the output shaft (paragraph 93), (ii) receive a first torque from the output shaft (paragraph 93), and (iii) apply a hammering force in the rotation direction to the output shaft based on receipt of the first torque (paragraph 93), the first torque having a specified magnitude or more in a direction opposite to a rotation direction of the output shaft (paragraph 92); and an impact detector (i.e. impact detecting circuit 72/73, which meets the limitation of the impact detector, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6g above) configured to detect the hammering, wherein the deceleration controller is configured to decelerate or stop the motor via the drive circuit based on (i) the hammering not being detected by the impact detector (paragraph 160) and (ii) the determination value having reached the threshold value (i.e. target current T, paragraph 115).
In reference to claim 7, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a time counter (72) configured to measure an elapsed time from a third timing, the third timing arriving after the rotation controller starts rotating the motor so that the output shaft rotates in the second tool rotation direction (paragraphs 35, 37 and 39); and a threshold time calculator configured to calculate a threshold time (paragraph 108), the threshold time calculator being configured to decrease the threshold time as the speed parameter increases, wherein the deceleration controller is configured to decelerate or stop the motor via the drive circuit based on, (i) the elapsed time having reached the threshold time and (ii) the determination value having reached the threshold value (i.e. “b”, paragraph 108).
In reference to claim 8, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a hammering mechanism (42) configured to (i) transmit the rotational force of the motor to the output shaft (paragraph 93), (ii) receive a first torque from the output shaft (paragraph 93), and (iii) apply a hammering force in the rotation direction to the output shaft based on receipt of the first torque (paragraph 93), the first torque having a specified magnitude or more in a direction opposite to a rotation direction of the output shaft (paragraph 92); an impact detector (72/73 configured to detect the hammering; a time counter (72) configured to measure an elapsed time from a third timing (paragraphs 35, 37 and 39), the third timing arriving after the rotation controller starts rotating the motor so that the output shaft rotates in the second tool rotation direction; and a threshold time calculator (72) configured to calculate a threshold time (paragraph 108), the threshold time calculator being configured to decrease the threshold time as the speed parameter increases, wherein the deceleration controller is configured to decelerate or stop the motor via the drive circuit based on (i) the hammering not being detected by the impact detector, (ii) the elapsed time having reached the threshold time, and (iii) the determination value having reached the threshold value (i.e. “b”, paragraph 108).
In reference to claim 9, Ito et al. disclose that the count variable determiner is configured to increase the count variable as the threshold time decreases (paragraph 108).
In reference to claim 10, Ito et al. disclose that the count variable contains a component (i.e. current) inversely proportional to the threshold time (paragraph 108).
In reference to claim 11, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a first switch (27) configured to be manually moved by a user of the electric power tool, wherein the rotation controller is configured to start rotating the motor so that the output shaft rotates in the second tool rotation direction based on the first switch being moved (paragraph 92)
In reference to claim 12, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a first switch (i.e. trigger 25, which is similar to the trigger 8 see paragraph 276 pf Applicants PG-PUB) configured to be manually moved by a user of the electric power tool, wherein the speed setter is configured to set the command rotation speed in accordance with a moved length of the first switch (paragraphs 91, 92 and 103).
In reference to claim 13, Ito et al. disclose further comprising: a second switch (2B) configured to be manually moved by a user of the electric power tool in order to alternatively select one operation mode from two or more operation modes (e.g. drill, clutch, pulse see paragraph 79); and a mode setter (72) configured to set the electric power tool to the one operation mode selected by the second switch, wherein the two or more operation modes are each associated with the command rotation speeds different from each other (because a user can squeeze the trigger more in one mode than in another mode), and the speed setter is configured to set the command rotation speed associated with the operation mode set by the mode setter (paragraph 182).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikawa et al. (10427282) disclose an impact tool including; a motor control circuit (40), a drive circuit (42), a control circuit (46), a speed selector switch (24), a trigger switch (21) and with control unit that controls activation of the protection unit differently when the rotational direction of the motor is set to a reverse rotational direction in comparison with when the rotational direction of the motor is set to a forward rotational direction (see Abstract).
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