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 and Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants arguments. The rejections are maintained and are made final. All arguments are addressed herein.
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:
“an impact mechanism configured to receive motive power from the motor to generate impacting force” in claims 1 and 8
“a torque measuring unit configured to measure, as measured torque, torque applied to the output shaft” in claims 1 and 8
“a fastening torque calculating unit configured to calculate, based on the measured torque measured by the torque measuring unit, fastening torque to be applied to the fastening member” in claim 1
“a control unit configured to control operation of the motor”, in claim 1
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.
When looking to the specification, “an impact mechanism” is defined to be “The impact mechanism 17 includes a hammer 19, an anvil 20, and a spring 24.” For examination purposes, this is the structure required for an impact mechanism, or equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, a “torque measuring unit” is defined to be “The torque measuring unit 41 may be, for example, a magnetostrictive strain sensor which may detect torsional strain. The magnetostrictive strain sensor makes a coil, installed in a non-rotating portion near the output shaft 21, detect a variation in permeability due to a strain caused by the application of torque to the output shaft 21 and outputs a voltage signal proportional to the strain thus detected.” For examination purposes, this torque/strain sensor is required by the claim, or equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, a “fastening torque calculating unit” and “control unit” are defined to be “The fastening torque calculating unit 43 and the control unit 44may be implemented as, for example, a microcontroller. That is to say, the fastening torque calculating unit 43 and the control unit 44 include a computer system including one or more processors and a memory. In this case, a single microcontroller may perform the functions of both the fastening torque calculating unit 43 and the control unit 44. Alternatively, a microcontroller performing the function of the fastening torque calculating unit 43 and a microcontroller performing the function of the control unit 44 may be provided separately from each other.” For examination purposes, the fastening torque calculating unit and/or control unit is assumed to be at least part of a microcontroller, processor, or computer known in the art, or equivalents thereof.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekino (US 2015/0021062).
Regarding claim 1, Sekino discloses an electric tool comprising:
a motor (Item 15);
an impact mechanism (Items 17) configured to receive motive power from the motor to generate impacting force;
an output shaft (Item 21) configured to hold a tip tool (Item 24)for use to apply either tightening force or loosening force to a fastening member, the output shaft being configured to receive, from the impact mechanism, rotational impact around an axis;
a torque measuring unit (Item 26) configured to measure, as measured torque, torque applied to the output shaft;
a fastening torque calculating unit (Item 41) configured to calculate, based on the measured torque measured by the torque measuring unit, fastening torque to be applied to the fastening member (paragraph 59); and
a control unit (Item 30) configured to control operation of the motor, the control unit having a speed reducing function of changing, according to the fastening torque calculated by the fastening torque calculating unit, a number of revolutions of the motor from a first number of revolutions into a second number of revolutions, the second number of revolutions being smaller than the first number of revolutions (Paragraph 62-64 and 98).
Regarding claim 2, Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the speed reducing function by changing, when finding the fastening torque calculated by the fastening torque calculating unit greater than a torque threshold value, the number of revolutions of the motor from the first number of revolutions into the second number of revolutions (Paragraph 62-64 and 98).
Regarding claim 3, Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the speed reducing function by stopping the motor on detecting that the fastening torque calculated by the fastening torque calculating unit has reached a target torque, the target torque being greater than the torque threshold value (Paragraph 65 and 82-84).
Regarding claim 4, Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the speed reducing function by obtaining, based on the fastening torque, an approximation function representing a relation between the fastening torque and time and changing, according to a value of the approximation function, the number of revolutions of the motor from the first number of revolutions into the second number of revolutions (Paragraph 86-98).
Regarding claim 5 Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 1, wherein the control unit has a function of changing a ratio of the first number of revolutions to the second number of revolutions (Paragraph 86-98).
Regarding claim 6, Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the speed reducing function by changing, according to the fastening torque and a number of times the impact mechanism has performed an impact operation, the number of revolutions of the motor from the first number of revolutions into the second number of revolutions (Paragraphs 86-98).
Regarding claim 7, Sekino discloses the electric tool of claim 1, wherein the control unit has: a first mode in which the control unit performs the speed reducing function; and a second mode in which the control unit maintains the number of revolutions of the motor at the first number of revolutions (Paragraph 86-98; first and second mode is interpreted broadly. Since the equations are based on time and torque and are continuously being changed, these can be considered different modes).
Regarding claim 8, Sekino discloses a method for controlling an electric tool, the electric tool including:
a motor (Item 15);
an impact mechanism (Item 17) configured to receive motive power from the motor to generate impacting force;
an output shaft (Item 21) configured to hold a tip tool for use to apply either tightening force or loosening force to a fastening member, the output shaft being configured to receive, from the impact mechanism, rotational impact around an axis; and
a torque measuring unit (Item 26) configured to measure, as measured torque, torque applied to the output shaft,
the method comprising:
a calculating step including calculating, based on the measured torque measured by the torque measuring unit, fastening torque to be applied to the fastening member (Paragraph 86-87); and
a speed reducing step including changing, according to the fastening torque calculated in the calculating step, a number of revolutions of the motor from a first number of revolutions into a second number of revolutions, the second number of revolutions being smaller than the first number of revolutions (Paragraph 62-64 and 98).
Regarding claim 9, Sekino discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program designed to cause one or more processors of the computer to perform the method for controlling the electric tool according to claim 8 (Paragraph 63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is of the Examiner’s perspective that when a bolt is tightened, the motor rotates at a first speed for the majority of the length of the bolt, then, when the bolt starts to experience torque, the motor is slowed and calculated as discussed in the cited paragraphs of Sekino.
Applicant argues the user sets the torque value, not the fastening toque calculated by the fastening toque calculating unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in paragraph 50, Item 26 continuously inputs a signal to the control circuit. Paragraphs 104-106 also give further discussion on how the torque is measured and continuously monitored by the control circuit.
Applicant argues in Paragraph 127 and 128 Sekino teaches the configuration in which the number of revolutions is limited by a set value. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 127-128 give an example of what happens in a low torque scenario. In this scenario, the motor simply does not go into a fast mode. This is not the whole scope of the invention. The motor can also operate in a high speed higher torque mode that as torque is applied, the speed of the motor changes as different anvil hits adjust the distance in which the bolt travels. This is discussed in the equation and discussion in at least paragraph 98.
Applicant argues the motor control unit of Sekino limits the motor speed in a first number of revolution to a second speed in a second number of revolutions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, it is known in the art, that a long bolt has a large length of little to no torque being experienced by a bolt. This can be a first distance at a first fast speed. As the bolt tightens , the controller changes the speed to a second slower speed, which also has a different length. This is discussed in the paragraph 98, shown in the formula following, and shown in Fig 6.
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
Prosecution Insights