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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “rotation with output shaft” in line 6. This is grammatically incorrect. The sentence should read, “rotation with the output shaft” as an output shaft has already been introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “rotation with output shaft" in line 6. As explained above, since there is no article before “output shaft” it is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same or a different output shaft as previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehm et al. (US 7,546,785) in view of Gebhard (CN 1314802 A).
A person having ordinary skill in this art is an engineer having at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and several years of consumer-grade or light-weight tool design experience.
As to claim 1, Roehm teaches a power tool system (Title: “Battery-operated Screwdriver”) comprising: a power tool (battery operated screwdriver 10) including a housing (housing) supporting or connected to a power source (battery 40); a motor (motor 46) supported by and disposed in the housing (as illustrated in Fig 1) and including an output shaft (Col 4 lines 36-38: “The motor 46 has one rear and one front steplike motor collar 48, 49, from which the rear and front ends of the motor shaft 45 emerge”), the motor configured to drive rotation of the output shaft (since the shaft 45 is connected to the motor, it is inferred that the motor drives the shaft); and a chuck1 (power takeoff spindle 20) coupled to the output shaft for rotation with output shaft (Col 5 lines 13-15: “A power takeoff spindle 20, designed on its face end as a hexagonal socket 21 for receiving fitting standard bits, protrudes at the front from the gearbox 18.” The output shaft 15 is connected to the gearbox 18), the chuck configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform an operation (the hexagonal socket 21 [is] for receiving fitting standard bits, which are useful for performing screwdriving operations); and a base (boxlike charger shell 22, see Fig 3) engageable by the power tool (as illustrated).
Roehm does not teach: wherein alignment of the power tool and the base is configured to stop rotation of the chuck.
Rather, Roehm teaches the screwdriver begins charging when the tool is placed on the cradle. See Col 5 lines 40-45: “Solely by placing the battery-operated screwdriver 10 on the intended place of the charger shell 22, the charging state automatically ensues, with an audible click, as a result of mechanically secure contacting, as long as the charger shell 22 is connected to the power grid via its electric cord 24.”
It may be reasonable to conclude that in the field of consumer-grade tools, a rechargeable tool is well known to automatically stop operating when the tool is plugged in to charge. However, this is not explicitly taught by Roehm.
Refer to Gebhard which teaches a consumer grade tool (facial-iron 200) having on-board batteries (805) which is intended to be placed onto a charging cradle (charger 410) which is itself plugged into mains via wire 415. The tool has a battery management system shown in Figs 9 and 10 which controls when the tool is in an on mode and when the tool is charging. Gebhard teaches that when the tool is placed on the charger, the reed switch stops the tool from heating. See Page 5 Paragraph 6 of the translation: “when the iron is placed in the charger relay 915 so that the relay contact is closed. when the iron is removed from the charger is removed, the magnetic reed switch 920 opens the heater.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for: wherein alignment of the power tool and the base is configured to stop rotation of the chuck.
Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by the solution proposed in Gebhard, in order to ensure the tool does not errantly operate while in the charger, increasing safety of the tool.
See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the combination of Gebhard’s battery management system into the tool of Roehm would yield the predictable result of a safer battery-operated screwdriver.
As to claim 2, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 1, wherein the base (Roehm’s charger shell 22) includes a pocket (embedding means 25, see Fig 8) and the housing is shaped to fit into the pocket (Roehm Col 6 lines 33-38: “FIG. 8 shows a top view on the charger shell 22, looking toward the embedding means 25, which is subdivided into a handle bed 251 and a gearbox bed 252, so that the battery-operated screwdriver 10 can be placed flush and virtually without play, unambiguously and in foolproof fashion, in the charger shell 22 in such a way that it rests securely”), and wherein rotation of the chuck is stopped when the power tool is engaged with the base within the pocket (According to Gebhard, the power system is controlled by reed switch 920 which interacts with magnet 840 which is shown to be in proximity when the tool is in the charger. See Gebhard Fig 8.).
As to claim 3, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 2, wherein the base includes a projection defining a portion of the pocket, and wherein the projection extends into the housing on engagement of the power tool with the base (the electrical contact 610 shown in Gebhard’s charging base 410 is a projection which extends into the tool housing, as indicated in the Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 1, wherein rotation of the chuck is stopped when the power tool is attached to the base (According to Gebhard, the power system is controlled by reed switch 920 which interacts with magnet 840 which is shown to be in proximity when the tool is in the charger. See Gebhard Fig 8. As the power is cut, the rotation of the chuck is stopped.).
As to claim 5, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system claim 1, wherein alignment of the power tool with the base includes positioning the power tool within a predetermined distance relative to the base (since Gebhard teaches the reed switch 940 cuts the power, and the reed switch is controlled by proximity to magnet 840, the claim is met).
As to claim 6, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 5, wherein the predetermined distance is greater than zero and less than 1 inch (the claim is met by Gebhard’s teaching of a reed switch controlled by magnet 840. See Gebhard Fig 8).
As to claim 8, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 1, wherein one of the power tool and the base includes a switch (Gebhard teaches reed switch 920 in the tool, see Fig 9) and the other of the power tool and the base includes a magnet (Gebhard teaches magnet 840), and wherein alignment between the power tool and the base includes placement of the switch within a predetermined distance of the magnet to stop rotation of the chuck (Gebhard teaches the magnetic reed switch controls the power circuit. When combined with Roehm, this accordingly controls the motor to stop rotation while cradled).
As to claim 9, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 1, wherein the base (Roehm’s charger shell 22) includes a tool bit storage section configured to hold a plurality of tool bits compatible for use with the power tool (bit holder 99, as shown in Figs 3 and 5).
As to claim 10, Roehm teaches a power tool (Title: “battery-operated screwdriver”) comprising: a housing (housing 12) supporting or connected to a power source (battery 40); a motor (motor 46) supported by and disposed in the housing (as illustrated in Fig 1) and including an output shaft (motor shaft 45), the motor configured to drive rotation of the output shaft (as would be understood by an artisan having ordinary skill in this art); an actuator (ON/OFF button 26 (trigger) as shown in Fig 1) disposed on the housing and actuatable to switch the power tool between an on mode in which the motor is configured to rotate the output shaft, and an off mode in which the motor does not rotate (as would be understood by an artisan, “on” means the screwdriver rotates, and OFF means the screwdriver is not rotating) and the power tool is powered down (the tool is considered powered down when the motor is not energized); and a chuck2 (takeoff spindle 20) coupled to the output shaft for rotation with the output shaft (the takeoff spindle is connected to the output shaft 46 via gearbox 18. See Fig 1 and Col 5 lines 13-14), the chuck configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform a work operation (the takeoff spindle has a hexagonal socket 2. Col 5 lines 16-18: “The hexagonal socket 21 is provided with means that firmly hold the screwdriver bit or drill bit, inserted into it”).
Roehm does not teach: wherein the power tool is manipulatable between the on mode and a standby mode in which rotation of the motor is stopped without actuation of the actuator.
Rather, Roehm teaches the screwdriver begins charging when the tool is placed on the cradle. See Col 5 lines 40-45: “Solely by placing the battery-operated screwdriver 10 on the intended place of the charger shell 22, the charging state automatically ensues, with an audible click, as a result of mechanically secure contacting, as long as the charger shell 22 is connected to the power grid via its electric cord 24.”
It may be reasonable to conclude that in the field of consumer-grade tools, a rechargeable tool is well known to automatically stop operating when the tool is plugged in to charge. However, this is not explicitly taught by Roehm.
Refer to Gebhard which teaches a consumer grade tool (facial-iron 200) having on-board batteries (805) which is intended to be placed onto a charging cradle (charger 410) which is itself plugged into mains via wire 415. The tool has a battery management system shown in Figs 9 and 10 which controls when the tool is in an on mode and when the tool is charging. Gebhard teaches that when the tool is placed on the charger, the reed switch stops the tool from heating. See Page 5 Paragraph 6 of the translation: “when the iron is placed in the charger relay 915 so that the relay contact is closed. when the iron is removed from the charger is removed, the magnetic reed switch 920 opens the heater.” The state in which the tool is in the cradle, but the reed switch is open is considered the standby mode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for: the power tool is manipulatable between the on mode and a standby mode in which rotation of the motor is stopped without actuation of the actuator.
Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by the solution proposed in Gebhard, in order to ensure the tool does not errantly operate while in the charger, increasing safety of the tool.
See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the combination of Gebhard’s battery management system into the tool of Roehm would yield the predictable result of a safer battery-operated screwdriver.
As to claim 11, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool of claim 10, wherein the actuator is a first actuator (Roehm’s ON/OFF button 26 is a first actuator) and the power tool further includes a switch configured to vary the power tool to the standby mode in response to placement of the switch within a predetermined distance of a second actuator (Gebhard’s reed switch 920 and magnet 840 performs this function).
As to claim 12, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool of claim 11, wherein the switch includes a reed switch (reed switch 920).
As to claim 13, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool of claim 11, wherein the power tool is configured to engage a base (Roehm’s tool 10 engages charger shell 22. Gebhard’s tool 200 engages charging base 410) including the second actuator to switch the power tool to the stand-by mode (Examiner interprets the claim to require the second actuator to be located in or on the base. The magnet 840 of Gebhard is located in the base 410).
As to claim 14, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool of claim 11, but does not teach the switch and the actuator are positioned on opposite sides of the housing.
Rather, the actuator (ON/OFF button 26 of Roehm) and the switch (reed switch 920 of Gebhard) appear to both be on side of the tool which contacts the charging base.
However, the ON/OFF buttons of light-grade power tools is known to be on any reasonable side of a housing of the tool. See Gebhard which teaches an actuator 1300 located on a side of the tool (Fig 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have located the actuator (ON/OFF button) on a top of a tool. The location of the ON/OFF button is not particularly limited, and is an obvious design choice based on the operational considerations of the tool, which would be understood by an artisan having ordinary skill in the light-grade tool design arts to be the mere relocation of a component already present on the tool.
As to claim 16, Roehm teaches a power tool system (title: “battery-operated screwdriver”) comprising a power tool (screwdriver 10) including a housing (housing 12) supporting or connected to a power source (battery 40, see Fig 1), a motor (motor 46) supported by and disposed in the housing (See Fig 1) and including an output shaft (motor shaft 45), the motor configured to drive rotation of the output shaft (as would be understood by an artisan having ordinary skill in this art), and a chuck3 (power takeoff spindle 20) coupled to the output shaft for rotation with the output shaft (the takeoff spindle is connected to the output shaft 46 via gearbox 18. See Fig 1 and Col 5 lines 13-14), the chuck configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform a work operation (the hexagonal socket 21 [is] for receiving fitting standard bits, which are useful for performing screwdriving operations).
Roehm does not teach: a first component supported by and disposed in the housing, and a base including a second component that is configured to align with the first component to stop rotation of the motor.
Rather, Roehm teaches the screwdriver begins charging when the tool is placed on the cradle. See Col 5 lines 40-45: “Solely by placing the battery-operated screwdriver 10 on the intended place of the charger shell 22, the charging state automatically ensues, with an audible click, as a result of mechanically secure contacting, as long as the charger shell 22 is connected to the power grid via its electric cord 24.”
It may be reasonable to conclude that in the field of consumer-grade tools, a rechargeable tool is well known to automatically stop operating when the tool is plugged in to charge. However, this is not explicitly taught by Roehm.
Refer to Gebhard which teaches a consumer grade tool (facial-iron 200) having on-board batteries (805) which is intended to be placed onto a charging cradle (charger 410) which is itself plugged into mains via wire 415. The tool has a battery management system shown in Figs 9 and 10 which controls when the tool is in an on mode and when the tool is charging. Gebhard teaches a reed switch 920 located in the tool and a magnet 840 located in the base. When the tool is placed on the charger, the reed switch is activated by a magnet and stops the tool from heating. See Page 5 Paragraph 6 of the translation: “when the iron is placed in the charger relay 915 so that the relay contact is closed. when the iron is removed from the charger is removed, the magnetic reed switch 920 opens the heater.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for: a first component supported by and disposed in the housing (Gebhard’s reed switch 920), and a base (Roehm’s charger shell 22 or Gebhard’s charger base 410) including a second component (Gebhard’s magnet 840) that is configured to align with the first component to stop rotation of the motor (the magnet opens reed switch 920 cutting power to the circuit).
Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by the solution proposed in Gebhard, in order to ensure the tool does not errantly operate while in the charger, increasing safety of the tool.
See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the combination of Gebhard’s battery management system into the tool of Roehm would yield the predictable result of a safer battery-operated screwdriver.
As to claim 17, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 16, wherein the first component is one of a reed switch and a magnet (the first component is a reed switch 940), and wherein the second component is the other of the reed switch and the magnet (the second component is a magnet 840).
As to claim 18, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 16, wherein the base includes a pocket and the housing is shaped to fit into the pocket, and wherein the second component is recessed from a surface of the pocket (see Gebhard Fig 8).
As to claim 19, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 18, wherein the first component is positioned between a surface of the housing and the chuck (Roehm’s chuck is located at the very front of the tool. The housing surrounds the entire tool. Gebhard teaches the reed switch 920 is located on a circuit 830 which is located inside the tool), and wherein alignment of the first component and the second component includes positioning the first component and the second component a non-zero distance from each other (as illustrated in Gebhard Fig 8 the magnet and circuit 830 are in a non-zero distance relationship with each other when the tool is in the base 410).
As to claim 20, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 18, wherein the first component and the second component are configured to engage each other when the power tool is positioned in the pocket (Gebhard teaches the reed switch 920 is manipulated by the magnet 840 when the tool is in the charger base 410).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehm in view of Gebhard as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively above, and further in view of Lutz et al. (US 2008/0074865).
As to claim 7, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool system of claim 1, but does not teach the power tool further includes a work light positioned adjacent to the chuck and configured to illuminate during rotation of the output shaft, and wherein, on alignment of the power tool and the base, the work light is configured to flash.
Rather, Roehm does not teach a work light at all. Instead, Roehm and Gebhard both teach indicator LED lights.
However, in the field of light-grade hand held power tools, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a work light positioned adjacent to a chuck. See Lutz Fig 2 which teaches: an illuminating element 22 positioned adjacent the tool fitting 15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have positioned includes a work light positioned adjacent to the chuck. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “direct illumination of the working area of the hand-held power tool.” (Lutz [0006]) See Also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Lutz teaches the lights are configured to illuminate during rotation of the output shaft. See Lutz [0026]: “The inventive hand-held power tool includes an on/off switch, which is located in the region of the handle in particular, in order to turn the electric motor on and off. With the inventive hand-held power tool, the on/off switch can be configured such that it also serves as an on/off switch for the at least one illuminating element. When the operator actuates the on/off switch, the electric motor for driving the hand-held power tool and the at least one illuminating element are switched on.”
Lutz further teaches the work light is configured to flash while charging (Lutz [0030]). Examiner notes that in view of Roehm and Gebhard, charging is associated with alignment of the power tool and the base. See Lutz
As to claim 15, Roehm in view of Gebhard teaches the power tool of claim 10, but does not teach a work light disposed adjacent to the chuck.
Rather, Roehm does not teach a work light at all. Instead, Roehm and Gebhard both teach indicator LED lights.
However, in the field of light-grade hand held power tools, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a work light positioned adjacent to a chuck. See Lutz Fig 2 which teaches: an illuminating element 22 positioned adjacent the tool fitting 15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have positioned includes a work light positioned adjacent to the chuck. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “direct illumination of the working area of the hand-held power tool.” (Lutz [0006]) See Also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Lutz teaches the lights are configured to illuminate when the power tool is in the on mode.
See Lutz [0026]: “The inventive hand-held power tool includes an on/off switch, which is located in the region of the handle in particular, in order to turn the electric motor on and off. With the inventive hand-held power tool, the on/off switch can be configured such that it also serves as an on/off switch for the at least one illuminating element. When the operator actuates the on/off switch, the electric motor for driving the hand-held power tool and the at least one illuminating element are switched on.”
Lutz [0026] therefore also implies the opposite: wherein the work light does not illuminate when the power tool is in the off mode.
Lutz teaches: wherein the work light flashes intermittently when the power tool is in the stand-by mode (See Lutz [0030]: “The illuminating element can also be designed as a blinking light, which indicates, e.g., the state of charge of the rechargeable battery pack.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 13 December 2025
1 Roehm teaches that the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 is not a chuck. Nonetheless, the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “chuck.” Applicant sets a reasonably broad interpretation of “chuck” having two structural requirements at paragraph [0003] of the originally filed Specification: (1)“The chuck is coupled to the output shaft for rotation with the output shaft.” And (2) “The chuck is configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform an operation.” The power takeoff spindle 20 having hexagonal socket 21 meets both of these structural limitations regardless of whether Roehm uses the term “chuck.”
2 Roehm teaches that the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 is not a chuck. Nonetheless, the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “chuck.” Applicant sets a reasonably broad interpretation of “chuck” having two structural requirements at paragraph [0003] of the originally filed Specification: (1)“The chuck is coupled to the output shaft for rotation with the output shaft.” And (2) “The chuck is configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform an operation.” The power takeoff spindle 20 having hexagonal socket 21 meets both of these structural limitations regardless of whether Roehm uses the term “chuck.”
3 Roehm teaches that the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 is not a chuck. Nonetheless, the spindle 20 with hexagonal socket 21 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “chuck.” Applicant sets a reasonably broad interpretation of “chuck” having two structural requirements at paragraph [0003] of the originally filed Specification: (1)“The chuck is coupled to the output shaft for rotation with the output shaft.” And (2) “The chuck is configured to receive a tool bit configured to perform an operation.” The power takeoff spindle 20 having hexagonal socket 21 meets both of these structural limitations regardless of whether Roehm uses the term “chuck.”