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 of group I, claims 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was treated as elected without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 as following
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because throughout the abstract, the abstract recites the terms "comprising or comprises", which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the terms with the term --has or having--, to provide the abstract with proper language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear as to exactly what being referring to as “tool set” (see preamble of claims 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 22), since the majority structure elements under the preamble clearly directed to “a tool “rather than a “tool set” which made scope of the claim unclear. Note that as best the examiner considered “a tool set “as number of tools with different size increments.
In formulate the rejection on the Merits the Examiner presumes that claims directed to a tool and its structural elements and claims will be rejected accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the claims appear to be written in foreigner formats and should be updated to US standard practice formats.
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 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 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.
“a tool set “(claim 1, preamble) should be updated to: -- “A hand tool” --, for clarity of the claim languages.
“a hand operated machine”(claim 1, lines 2) is awkwardly worded should be updated to:-- “an operated body”--, for clarity of the structure claim formats.
The phrases:” configured to”(see claim 1, lines 7, 11) and other occurrence in many places in the claims 2-15, 17-20, 22 is/are considered functionally intended use which do not further limit the claimed “tool”. Since the scope of the claims directed to the tool rather than the mode of operations.
“a plurality of tool head” (claim 2, line 3-6) is not understood since the claimed directed to a tool and a plurality of tool head appears to be directed to more than one tools.
“the at least one tool head” (claim 3, line 2); ”the following functions”(claim 3, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“a snap action or twist lock” (claim 4, line 2) is not clear as to exactly what type of the interface is being used since claim in the alternative formats
“the at least one tool head” (claims 5-6, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is not clear since no interconnect between the elements in the body of claim 7.
Claim 8 lacking of inventive structure feature, since only functionally intended use existed therefrom.
Claim 9 recites “the hand operated machine” should be updated to reflect changes as suggested in base claim 1 above.
whether or not “a recognizing device” (occurrence in both claims 9-10, line 2) is a part of the claimed tool? Since no connection between this device and the rest of the tool structure elements.
“the at least one tool head” (claim 11, line 4); “the function” (claim 11, line 5) lack proper antecedent basis.
“when performing the function” (claim 11, line 5) is not inventive feature, only condition statement, since no structure feature existed thereto.
Similar to claim 11 applied to claims 12-14 since no structure inventive feature existed in these claims only functionally intended use.
“and/or” (claim 15, line 2) is unclear as to whether either of features before or after and both.
the phrase(s) "configured to” (see claim 17, line 2) " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d). The office hereby notes the phrase(s) do not limit a claim to a particular structure but rather makes optional and does not denote how features are structurally associated.
Scope of claim 18 is unclear since claim directed to a tool and claim 18 recites outside element (e.g., a computer device, see line 3 of claim 18) which made scope of the claim unclear.
“the at least on tool head”(claim 20, lines 2-3); ”the plurality of tool heads”(claim 20, line 4) lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 22 appears to be incomplete since no interconnection between “an illumination device” (see lines 2-3) and the rest of the structures of the claimed tool. Also, whether the “illumination device” is a part of the tool or not?
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lefavour et al (20190160643).
Lefavour et al discloses the claimed tool set for cutting, stripping and/or crimping an electrical conductor comprising:
a hand-operated machine handlable 40/ 42/44 manually by a user (which considered as 40/42/44) see Fig. 1;
a tool interface 50/60 (see Fig. 3-4, 9);
a drive 18/28; and
at least one tool head 14 configured to carry out a function, is connectable to the hand-operated machine 40 via the tool interface 18/28 and is drivable in a connected position via the drive 18/28 (see Figs. 3-4, 9),
wherein the hand-operated machine 40 has a force determiner as sensor 18/21 and controller 24 configured to determine a displacement force caused by the drive (12) on the at least one tool head connectable to the hand-operated machine 40 (see Figs. 1, 3-4, 9 and discussed in ¶¶¶ [0002-0003, 0009, 0011, 0034-0036].
Therefore, the above claimed tool is met by the above reference.
As applied to claim 2, as best understood is met by the applied reference since no inventive structure limitations in claim 2. Also, Fig. 11-13 of the reference discloses a multiple tool head which readable on claim 2.
As applied to claim 3, lack of inventive feature only functionally intended use existed thereto (see also section of 112 above)
As applied to claim 4 refer to Fig. 4 for snap in connection.
Limitations of claims 4-5 refer to Fig. 2 where 18 is motor or drive and that as described in the abstract.
As applied to claim 7, refer to Fig. 2, controller 24 connectively to drive 18/28
As applied to claim 8 refer to Fig. 2, which depicts the controller 24 and it functionally associated therefrom.
As applied to claim 9 refer to Fig. 1, depict sensor 18 as recognizer sensor connectively to the tool.
Limitation of claim 10 is met by above since no inventive feature existed in claim 10 only functionally intended use.
As applied to claim 11 refer to Fig. 2, depict pressure sensor 30 which is as broadly as readable as the claimed “a path determiner” of the instant application.
Limitation of claims 12, 14 is/are also met by the applied reference since only functionally intended use recited in these claims.
As applied to claim 15 refer to Fig. 2 of the applied reference for the teaching of a memory device 25.
Limitation of claim 17 is also met by the applied reference since no further structure feature in this claim.
Limitations of claim 18 is met in view of Fig. 2 which depicts a data interface as interconnect between sensors 18, 28, 30 and the controller 24.
As applied to claim 20 refer to Fig. 2, which depicts a memory device 25 associated with the tool.
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(s) 22 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefavour et al in view of Chen et al (CN103056847).
Lefavour et al is in silent regarding “an illumination device” as set forth in claim 22. Regarding to this the Chen et al discloses such illumination device 7 (see discussion in ¶ [0013], of the Machine translation, and Fig. 1, reference 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teaching of Chen onto the Lefavour invention in order to obtain a device having the above structure for various known benefits that includes simply and beneficial effect. The motivation can be found in abstract of the Chen (see lines 4-7 or ¶ [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt