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 .
The examiner notes the “related applications” in paragraph 1 of the Specification however the effective filing date for claim 14 is 7/19/23 because this is the first time that the image sensor was disclosed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 19, 2023, December 27, 2024 and May 1, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have 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 power source portion” in claims 1, 19 and 20. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the power source” as being, “powered manually, by electric motor, pneumatic drive, hydraulic drive, or any other suitable means” (see paragraph 51). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a power source”, is being interpreted as being powered manually, by electric motor, pneumatic drive, hydraulic drive, or any other suitable means and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a tip engagement portion” in claims 1, 19 and 20. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the tip engagement portion” as including, “a housing…and a counter-torque engagement end” (see paragraph 122). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a tip engagement portion”, is being interpreted as being a housing…and a counter-torque engagement end 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that overlapping subject matter is within each Group. This is found persuasive because dependent claims of Group I do include similar limitations as claimed in Groups II and III. Thus, applicant's request for reconsideration of the previous restriction is persuasive. Therefore, the Restriction requirement previously filed on November 14, 2025 is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and have been fully examined.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203).
In reference to claim 1, Atoulikian et al. disclose a system comprising a device (Figure 4) that applies torque to a target component (76) that is engaged with a base component (72), and the device also applies counter-torque to the base component while the target component is rotated with regard to the base (paragraphs 40-41), the device comprising:
a power source portion (i.e. driving handle 61, which meets the limitation of the manual power source portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) disposed at a proximal end (i.e. upper end of 20, Figure 1);
a tip engagement portion (i.e. 22 that is formed from housing 64…and a counter-torque engagement end lower end of 62, Figure 4, which meets the limitation of the tip engagement portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) disposed at a distal end (i.e. lower end of 20, Figure 1);
a rotating shaft (48, Figure 11) that rotates around a longitudinal axis (axis of 20) relative to the tip engagement portion to operably provide torque to an engagement tip tool (58) disposed at the distal end (i.e. at 28) of the tip engagement portion (Figures 2 and 11), the engagement tip tool configured to selectably, fixedly engage the target component (76) to provide rotation to the target component (paragraph 41); and
a counter-torque component comprising a body (80) that is configured to selectably, fixedly engage with the base component (72) to operably apply counter-torque to the base component (paragraph 41).
In reference to claim 2, Atoulikian et al. disclose a torque limiter (32) operably disposed between and engaged with the power source portion and the tip engagement portion (Figures 2-4), the torque limiter providing a pre-selected torque limit and operably mitigating further application of torque upon reaching the pre-selected torque limit (paragraph 35).
In reference to claim 10, Atoulikian et al. disclose that the tip engagement portion comprises: the rotating shaft (48) that is selectably, operably engaged with: the engagement tip tool (58, Figure 111) in a fixed engagement (Figures 3, 4 and 11 and paragraph 39), wherein the engagement tip tool is configured to operably engage with, and apply torque to, the target component (paragraph 40); and a power output shaft (26) of the power source portion; and the counter-torque component (Figures 4, 7 and 11).
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 3, 4, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of Goldberg et al. (2023/0020680).
In reference to claim 3, Atoulikian et al. disclose that the power source portion and the tip engagement portion are selectably detachable from each other (see Figure 3 showing the power source portion and the tip engagement portion being detached and Figure 4 showing the power source portion and the tip engagement portion being attached).
Atoulikian et al. lack disclosing that;
the torque limiter comprising a selectably replaceable unit.
However, Goldberg et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a torque limiter (82) as a selectably replaceable unit (last sentence in paragraph 40).
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 torque limiter, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the selectably replaceable torque limiter, as taught by Goldberg et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tool that can be readily adapted by the expedient replacing of torque limiters of different preset torques (paragraph 40).
In reference to claim 4, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
a plurality of torque limiters, respective torque limiters preset at a specified and different torque limit that operably mitigates further application of torque upon reaching the specified torque limit, and respective torque limiters selectably insertable between the power source portion and the tip engagement portion, thereby setting the specified torque limit for the device by selecting the corresponding torque limiter.
However, Goldberg et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a plurality of replaceable torque limiters (82, 84, paragraph 40), respective torque limiters preset at a specified and different torque limit (paragraph 40) that operably mitigates further application of torque upon reaching the specified torque limit, and respective torque limiters selectably insertable (i.e. when combined with the tool of Atoulikian et al.) between the power source portion (i.e. driving handle 61 of Atoulikian et al.) and the tip engagement portion (i.e. housing 64…and a counter-torque engagement end lower end of 62, of Atoulikian et al.) thereby setting the specified torque limit for the device by selecting the corresponding torque limiter.
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 torque limiter, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the selectably replaceable torque limiter, as taught by Goldberg et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tool that can be readily adapted by the expedient replacing of torque limiters of different preset torques (paragraph 40).
In reference to claim 9, Atoulikian et al. disclose that the torque limiter comprises a sealed unit such that fluid leakage into the unit is mitigated, and that is configured to be cleaned on its exterior and reused; or an unsealed unit that is not configured to be cleaned and reused (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 19, Atoulikian et al. disclose a system comprising a device (Figure 4) that applies torque to a target component (76) that is engaged with a base component (72), and the device also applies counter-torque to the base component while the target component is rotated with regard to the base (paragraphs 40-41), the device comprising:
a body (20) comprising a proximal end (i.e. upper end of 20, Figure 1) and a distal end (i.e. lower end of 20 including 28, Figure 1);
a power source portion (i.e. driving handle 61, which meets the limitation of the manual power source portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) disposed at the proximal end (Figure 4);
a tip engagement portion (i.e. 22 that is formed from housing 64…and a counter-torque engagement end lower end of 62, Figure 4, which meets the limitation of the tip engagement portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) disposed at the distal end (Figure 4);
a rotating shaft (48, Figure 11) that rotates around a longitudinal axis (axis of 20) relative to the tip engagement portion (Figure 11);
a torque limiter (32) disposed between, and engaged with, the power source portion and the tip engagement portion (Figures 2 and 8-13), the torque limiter operable to provide a pre-selected torque limit (paragraph 35) and operably mitigate further application of torque by the rotating shaft upon reaching the pre-selected torque limit;
an engaged engagement tip tool (58) disposed at the distal end of the tip engagement portion (i.e. at 28), the engagement tip tool configured to selectably, fixedly engage with the target component to provide rotation to the target component (paragraph 38); and
a counter-torque component comprising a body (80) that is configured to selectably, fixedly engage with the base component to operably apply counter-torque to the base component (paragraph 41).
Atoulikian et al. lack disclosing that;
the torque limiter comprising a selectably replaceable unit.
However, Goldberg et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a torque limiter (82) as a selectably replaceable unit (last sentence in paragraph 40).
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 torque limiter, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the selectably replaceable torque limiter, as taught by Goldberg et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tool that can be readily adapted by the expedient replacing of torque limiters of different preset torques (paragraph 40).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of Abidin (2015/0148849).
In reference to claim 11, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose different engagement tip tools (58) that can be “of any appropriate configuration” and for “other applications” (paragraph 38), but lack,
forming the tip engagement portion (i.e. the counter-torque portion) comprising a selectably replaceable body,
wherein a first selectably replaceable body comprises a first engagement tip tool configured to engage a first target component, and the first body comprises a first counter-torque component configured to engage a first target base component, and
wherein a second selectably replaceable body comprises a second engagement tip tool configured to engage a second target component, and the second body comprises a second counter-torque component configured to engage a second target base component.
However, Abidin teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide selectably replaceable counter-torque tools (100, see paragraph 80 disclosing, “All or a portion of a device and/or system for counter-torque wrenches may be configured and arranged to be disposable, serviceable, interchangeable, and/or replaceable. These equivalents and alternatives along with obvious changes and modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure.” (paragraph 80). Abidin also teaches of providing different sizes (paragraph 81).
Since, the tip engagement portion (22), of Atoulikian et al., includes the counter-torque component (80), and because Abidin teaches of providing selectably replaceable counter-torque portions, the combination as a whole provides;
forming the tip engagement portion (i.e. 22) as a selectably replaceable body (as taught by Abidin),
wherein a first selectably replaceable body (i.e. 22) comprises a first engagement tip tool (i.e. one of tools 58, see paragraph 38 of Atoulikian et al.) configured to engage a first target component, and the first body comprises a first counter-torque component (80) configured to engage a first target base component, and
wherein a second selectably replaceable body (i.e. another 22) comprises a second engagement tip tool (i.e. another one of tools 58, see paragraph 38 Atoulikian et al.) configured to engage a second target component, and the second body comprises a second counter-torque component (a second smaller or larger counter-torque component 80, because Abidin teaches of providing different sizes, paragraph 81) configured to engage a second target base component.
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 tip engagement portion, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the selectably replaceable tip engagement portion having the first and second replaceable bodies, as taught by Abidin, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tip engagement portion that can be configured and arranged to be disposable, serviceable, interchangeable, and/or replaceable (paragraph 89).
In reference to claim 12, Atoulikian et al. disclose a plurality of selectably replaceable engagement tip tools (58) that can be “of any appropriate configuration” and for “other applications” (paragraph 38), wherein a first selectably replaceable engagement tool tip (i.e. flat head 58) is configured to engage a first target component, and a second selectably replaceable engagement tool tip (i.e. a Philips head 58) is configured to engage a second target component, but lack,
a plurality of selectably replaceable counter-torque components, wherein a first selectably replaceable counter-torque component is configured to engage a first target base component, and a second selectably replaceable counter-torque component is configured to engage a second target base component.
However, Abidin teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide selectably replaceable counter-torque tools (100, see paragraph 80 disclosing, “All or a portion of a device and/or system for counter-torque wrenches may be configured and arranged to be disposable, serviceable, interchangeable, and/or replaceable. These equivalents and alternatives along with obvious changes and modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure.” (paragraph 80). Abidin also teaches of providing different sizes (paragraph 81).
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 tip engagement portion/counter-tool portion, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the selectably replaceable tip engagement portion/counter-tool portion of different sizes, as taught by Abidin, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tip engagement portion that can be configured and arranged to be disposable, serviceable, interchangeable, and/or replaceable (paragraph 89).
Claim 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of Yim et al. (2018/0036046), Ng et al. (2016/0121467) and as further evidenced by Kress (4793226).
In reference to claim 13, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose other coupling configurations that may be used connection with shaft (26, paragraph 33), and further includes a power output shaft (44) that provides rotational power from the power source portion (61) to the tip engagement portion (Figure 11), and a gearbox (see box enclosing gears 30 at a lower portion of 20 in Figure 11) comprising gears (34/36, Figure 8) that are configured to convert torque between the motor and the power output shaft (paragraph 34), but lack,
the power source portion comprising:
a rechargeable battery;
a motor receiving electrical power from the battery;
a controller that operably controls operation of the motor.
However, Yim et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a power source portion (12, Figure 3) that can be formed as an electrical power source including a motor (not shown, paragraph 42) powered by a battery (paragraph 42) or as a manually power source portion (similar to the driving handle 61 of Atoulikian et al.) thereby teaching that these two power sources are equivalent to each other.
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 manual power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the electrical power source including the motor powered by the battery, as taught by Yim et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a motorized power tool (see claim 5) thereby allowing a user to more easily operate/drive the tip tool during normal operation with less effort.
In addition, Ng et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an electric power source portion (Figure 1-3 and 8) comprising a battery (11, paragraph 118), a motor (20) receiving electrical power from the battery (paragraph 118), and a controller (40) that operably controls operation of the motor (paragraph 118).
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 electrical power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing an electric power source including the controller, as taught by Ng et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that “achieves the ability to impact drive a single fastener, multiple fasteners of the same type, or multiple fasters of different type accurately, predictably and efficiently” and that “allows for accurate drive control, as well as control of power output and usage” (paragraph 117).
And, as further evidenced by Kress, which teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide rechargeable batteries (Column 1, Lines 5-45 and Column7, Lines 12-19).
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 battery, of modified Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the rechargeable battery, as taught by Kress, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having battery that that permits recharging (Column 1, Lines 5-18).
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of Yim et al. (2018/0036046), Ng et al. (2016/0121467), as further evidenced by Kress (4793226) and further in view of Dobashi et al. (2019/0294138).
In reference to claim 14, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
an image sensor to collect image data of a target operation area and an illumination component to provide light to the target operation area.
In addition, Dobashi et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a power tool with an image sensor (5) to collect image data of a target operation area (paragraph 38) and an illumination component (234) to provide light to the target operation area (paragraph 33).
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 tool, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the image sensor and the illumination component, as taught by Dobashi et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that captures an image of the work object during the work (paragraph 38) and that emits light toward the work object during the work (paragraph 33).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of Yim et al. (2018/0036046) and Ng et al. (2016/0121467).
In reference to claim 15, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose other coupling configurations that may be used connection with shaft (26, paragraph 33), but lack,
the power source portion comprising: a motor receiving electrical power from an electrical power source; a controller that operably controls operation of the motor, the controller comprising: memory that stores data indicative of a pre-set torque limit; and a processor that identifies when an electrical current draw applied by the motor reaches a level indicative of the pre-set torque limit and shuts down the motor.
However, Yim et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a power source portion (12, Figure 3) that can be formed as an electrical power source including a motor (not shown, paragraph 42) powered by a battery (paragraph 42) or as a manually power source portion (similar to the driving handle 61 of Atoulikian et al.) thereby teaching that these two power sources are equivalent to each other.
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 manual power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the electrical power source including the motor powered by the battery, as taught by Yim et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a motorized power tool (see claim 5) thereby allowing a user to more easily operate/drive the tip tool during normal operation with less effort.
In addition, Ng et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an electric power source portion (Figure 1-3 and 8) comprising a controller (40, paragraph 9) that operably controls operation of the motor (paragraphs 18, 19 and 54), the controller comprising: memory (paragraph 170) that stores data indicative of a pre-set torque limit; and a processor (paragraph 169) that identifies when an electrical current draw applied by the motor reaches a level indicative of the pre-set torque limit and shuts down the motor (paragraphs 18, 19, 54, 124 and 172).
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 electrical power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing an electric power source including the controller, the memory and the processor, as taught by Ng et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that “achieves the ability to impact drive a single fastener, multiple fasteners of the same type, or multiple fasters of different type accurately, predictably and efficiently” and that “allows for accurate drive control, as well as control of power output and usage” (paragraph 117).
In reference to claim 16, Ng et al. disclose that the controller storing data (paragraphs 169-170), in the memory and/or externally to the device, indicative of one or more of: time of device use, torque applied during use (paragraph 18); torque limit during device use (paragraph 19), torque profiles while tightening (paragraph 19), and image data collected during use.
In reference to claim 17, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose other coupling configurations that may be used connection with shaft (26, paragraph 33), but lack,
the power source portion comprising a motor; and
a controller that operably controls operation of the motor, wherein the controller reverses the motor upon deactivation of a forward activation of the motor, and wherein the reversal comprises merely enough to unbind the engagement tip tool from the target component.
However, Yim et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a power source portion (12, Figure 3) that can be formed as an electrical power source including a motor (not shown, paragraph 42) powered by a battery (paragraph 42) or as a manually power source portion (similar to the driving handle 61 of Atoulikian et al.) thereby teaching that these two power sources are equivalent to each other.
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 manual power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing the electrical power source including the motor powered by the battery, as taught by Yim et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a motorized power tool (see claim 5) thereby allowing a user to more easily operate/drive the tip tool during normal operation with less effort.
In addition, Ng et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an electric power source portion (Figure 1-3 and 8) comprising a controller (40, paragraph 9) that operably controls operation of the motor (paragraphs 18, 19 and 54), wherein the controller reverses the motor upon deactivation of a forward activation of the motor (paragraph 54), and wherein the reversal comprises merely enough to unbind the engagement tip tool from the target component (paragraphs 54, 64, 67, 73, 76 and 124).
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 electrical power source, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing an electric power source including the controller, as taught by Ng et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that “achieves the ability to impact drive a single fastener, multiple fasteners of the same type, or multiple fasters of different type accurately, predictably and efficiently” and that “allows for accurate drive control, as well as control of power output and usage” (paragraph 117).
Claim 18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoulikian et al. (2014/0277203) in view of King et al. (2019/0314964).
In reference to claim 18, Atoulikian et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
a display that operably indicates to a user an amount of torque applied by the rotating shaft.
However, King et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar tool (100) with a display (118) that operably indicates to a user an amount of torque applied by a rotating shaft (18, paragraph 22)
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 tool, of Atoulikian et al., with the known technique of providing a tool with the display, as taught by King et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can display various information for the user to view and interpret, for example, text or graphics, or information entered into the user input interface (paragraph 22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention pertains to a tool. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing; a torque limiter comprising: an input component comprising an input coupler that operably engages with, and receives rotational power from, an output of the power source portion, and a plurality of noses that project radially outward from the input coupler; and an output component comprising a wall having a plurality of projections that project radially inward to operably engage with the noses to transfer rotational power from the input component to the output component (as in claim 5 and 20), together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The examiner notes that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device, of Atoulikian et al., with the torque limiter comprising: an input component comprising an input coupler that operably engages with, and receives rotational power from, an output of the power source portion, and a plurality of noses that project radially outward from the input coupler; and an output component comprising a wall having a plurality of projections that project radially inward to operably engage with the noses to transfer rotational power from the input component to the output component, because such a modification would require a substantial reconstruction, redesign of the elements shown in the primary reference that would change the basic principle under which the primary reference was designed to operate (i.e. providing “Thus, the drive train of the combination extends from input of shaft 26 to output 28 and includes at least shafts 26, 38, 44, and 48, and gears 34, 36, 40, and 42, and coupling 46.”, see paragraph 38 and Figure 11) and would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bootwala et al. (9918755) disclose a tool that applies torque and counter-torque to a workpiece (Figures 1-30).
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