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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 January 2026. Moreover, the amendment to claim 1 to recite a “restriction surface” instead of the previously recited “restriction portion” results in the interpretation of “restriction portion” under 35 UCS 112(f) as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action being rendered moot.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0087709 A1 to Barezzani in view of US Pat. No. 3,706,245 to Van Schaik.
Regarding claim 1, Barezzani discloses an electric cutting device (paragraphs 1 and 2 disclose the device being for ‘cutting’, and the device is also electric due to including an electric motor 6 and a battery 5), comprising:
a pair of tools having a first tool and a second tool (see the annotated Fig. 7A below), the pair of tools being configured to clamp an object (see paragraphs 38 and 40; paragraph 38 describes “a compression and/or cutting tool”, where compression includes clamping; note also that, the ‘configured to clamp and cut an object’ feature is satisfied upon the modification of Barezzani in view of Van Schaik below);
an electric motor 6 configured to generate a driving force necessary for operating the pair of tools (see paragraphs 39 and 40; the driving force of the motor 6 is ‘necessary for operating’ the pair of tools because without the driving force produced by the motor, the pump 11 is not operated, and thus the pair of tools is not operated);
a controller (the controller being a function of the control circuit 9 that controls operation of the motor 6, just as the ‘control unit’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification) configured to control an operation of the electric motor 6 (see the Abstract and paragraph 84);
a first member provided with the first tool (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below);
a second member provided with the second tool (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below);
a restriction surface configured to come into contact with at least one of the first member and the second member (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below and the uppermost of the left three images of Fig. 7A showing contact between the restriction surfaces of the first and second members; see also paragraphs 15 and 24, describing the first and second members, which are referred to as jaws, coming into contact with each other, where the contact includes contact of the restriction surfaces because the restriction surfaces are an uppermost surface of the second member and a lowermost surface of the first member; see also the modification of Barezzani below) to restrict an operable range of the pair of tools (see the uppermost of the left three images of Fig. 7A showing the operable range being restricted; see also paragraphs 15 and 24; this feature is further satisfied upon the modification of Barezzani in view of Van Schaik below); and
a contact detector (the contact detector being a function of the control circuit 9 that processes a signal from the current sensor 23 per paragraphs 57-59, just as the ‘contact detector’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification; i.e., the contact detector in the present application is not a sensor, but is instead a function of the control board that processes a signal from a sensor) configured to detect that the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface (see paragraphs 57-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Barezzani discloses that a state where at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface is either a first state or a second state (in particular, a second state corresponding to the first and second members contacting one another; see paragraph 60), the first state being a state where a distance between the pair of cutting blades is a longest distance (this feature is not required due to the recitation of ‘or’ in the preceding clause), the second state being a state where the distance between the first and second members is a shortest distance (see the uppermost of the left three images of Fig. 7A and paragraph 60 – the distance between the members is “a shortest distance” when the members contact one another because the contact results in the distance between the members being zero).
Regarding claim 3, Barezzani discloses a movement amount detector (the movement amount detector being a function of the control circuit 9 that processes a signal from the distance sensor 24 per paragraphs 61-63, just as the ‘movement amount detector’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification; i.e., the movement amount detector in the present application is not a sensor, but is instead a function of the control board that processes a signal from a sensor; also, note that per paragraphs 93-96, Barezzani discloses providing both the current sensor 23 and the movement amount sensor 24, such that Barezzani discloses providing both the contact detector and the movement amount detector in order to process the signals from both sensors 23 and 24) configured to detect movement amounts of the first member and the second member (see paragraphs 61-63; the movement amount detector is configured to detect movement amounts ‘ΔD’ between the first and second members; i.e., the movement amounts ‘ΔD’ are of the first and second members because the movement amounts ‘ΔD’ are measured between the two members) from the state where the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface (see paragraph 64; also, the movement amount detector is configured detect movement amounts at any time, inclusive of from the state where one of the members comes into contact with the restriction surface – e.g., the time period ‘ΔT’ can encompass some period of time during which one of the members is in contact with the restriction surface, and even during this time the movement amount detect detects the movement amount ‘ΔD’).
Regarding claim 5, Barezzani discloses a maximum current changer (the maximum current changer being a function of the control circuit 9 that changes a current applied to the electric motor 6 in accordance with paragraph 84 of Barezzani, just as the ‘maximum current changer’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification) configured to change a maximum value of current allowed to be supplied to the electric motor 6 (see, e.g., the Abstract and paragraph 84 – since the current changer switches off the motor 6, the current changer reduces the amount of current to zero), wherein the maximum current changer is configured to: determine a timing to change the maximum value based on the movement amounts detected by the movement amount detector (see the Abstract and paragraphs 61-64 – the maximum current changer determines when to switch off the motor based on the movement amounts, since the movement amounts determine when the first and second members are in contact).
Regarding claim 7, Barezzani discloses that when the pair of tools operate in a closing direction (i.e., as the first and second members become closer to one another as can be seen in Fig. 7A), the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface at the same time as or before the pair of tools come into contact with each other (see the annotated Fig. 7A above; because the restriction surfaces of the first and second members are along same planes as the respective tools, the first and second members come into contact with each other at the same time as the pair of tools come into contact with each other; additionally, see the modification of Barezzani below, where following modification of Barezzani, the restriction surface comes into contact with one of the members before the pair of cutting blades contact one another).
Regarding claim 9, Barezzani discloses that the contact detector is configured to perform the detection of the contact based on an operating parameter of the electric motor 6 (see paragraphs 57 and 59; the operating parameter being a current).
Regarding claim 10, Barezzani discloses that the contact detector is configured to: compare a value of the operating parameter of the electric motor 6 with a predetermined reference value (see paragraph 58); and in a case where the value of the operating parameter of the electric motor 6 exceeds the predetermined reference value, detect that the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface (see the Abstract, paragraph 58, and claim 3; note that the current sensed by the current sensor 23 increases when the first and second members come into contact because the load on the motor 6 increases when the first and second members come into contact, and as such the comparison of paragraph 58 of Barezzani encompasses a case where the value of the operating parameter exceeds the predetermined value).
Regarding claim 11, Barezzani discloses that the contact detector is configured to perform the detection of the contact based on a current supplied to the electric motor 6 (see paragraphs 57 and 59; current sensor 23 senses current supplied to the motor 6, and the contact detector performs detection based on signals from the current sensor 6).
Although Barezzani discloses that the device is able to perform a cutting operation (see paragraphs 1 and 2), at least for purposes of this rejection Barezzani is not considered as disclosing that the first and second members are provided with cutting blades. However, Barezzani does disclose that its cutting device can be provided with different types of first and second members (see three different configurations of the members in Figs. 7, 8, and 9; see also paragraph 3). As such, Barezzani is considered as failing to disclose: a pair of cutting blades having a first blade and a second blade, that the first member is provided with the first blade, that the second member is provided with the second blade, and that the operable range is of the pair of cutting blades, as required by claim 1. Barezzani likewise fails to disclose that distance between the first and second members is a distance between the pair of cutting blades as required by claim 2. Barezzani also fails to disclose that the pair of cutting blades come into contact with each other as required by claim 7.
In general, Van Schaik, as best seen in Fig. 4, teaches a cutting device having two members 14 and 15, with the two members 14 and 15 provided with cutting blades 127 and 128, and with the each of the two members 14 and 15 also provided with a respective restriction surface (the restriction surfaces being defined by stops 130 and 131; see Figs. 4 and 10). Turning to claimed features, Van Schaik teaches a pair of cutting blades (the cutting blades being provided to the members 14 and 15 and defining the cutting edges 127 and 128, respectively) having a first cutting blade (the blade defining cutting edge 127) and a second cutting blade (the blade defining cutting edge 128; see Fig. 4), where the first member 14 is provided with the first blade (see Fig. 4), and the second member 15 is provided with the second cutting blade 128 (see Fig. 4), and a restriction surface (a surface of either of the stops 130 and 131; note that the stops 130 and 131 are parts of the first and second members 14 and 15, respectively) is configured to come into contact with at least one of the first member 14 and the second member 15 (i.e., a restriction surface of stop 130 comes into contact with the second member 15, and a restriction surface of stop 131 comes into contact with the first member 14; see Fig. 10 and col. 5, lines 44-53; consistent with the present disclosure, the restriction surfaces are permitted to be portions of the first and second members) to restrict an operable range of the pair of cutting blades (see Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 42-55). Additionally, the cutting blades are configured to clamp and cut an object (see Fig. 4, where this feature is satisfied because the blades press against opposing sides of the workpiece, thus clamping the workpiece, at a start of cutting the objection; also, the blades perform the clamping function to the same extent as the blades disclosed in the present application). [Claim 1] Van Schaik also teaches that a state where at least one of the first member 14 and the second member 15 comes into contact with the restriction surface (either restriction surface of portions 130 and 131) is a second state, the second state being a state where a distance between the pair of cutting blades is shortest (see Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 42-55). [Claim 2] Van Schaik teaches that when the pair of cutting blades operate in the closing direction, the at least one of the first member 14 and the second member 15 comes into contact with the restriction surface (either restriction surface of portions 130 and 131) before the pair of cutting blades 127 and 128 come into contact with each other (see Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 42-55). [Claim 7] Van Schaik teaches that the configuration of its first and second members, including providing each of the members with a cutting blade and a restriction surface, is advantageous when it is desired to perform a cutting operation, such as for cutting bars or multi-strand cables (see col. 1, lines 3-6). Barezzani also acknowledges use of its cutting device to cut cables when the device is provided with cutting tools (see paragraph 2).
Therefore, in view of the facts that Barezzani contemplates its electric device being usable for performing a cutting operation (although Barezzani does not explicitly illustrate any cutting blades usable for performing the cutting operation), and that Barezzani contemplates its device being usable with different types of working members, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric device of Barezzani with an additional working device (i.e., in addition to those illustrated in Figs. 7-9) including the first member and second members in the form of the members of Van Schaik, which members include first and second cutting blades and first and second restriction surfaces, respectively. This modification is advantageous when it is desired to use the electric device of Barezzani to perform a cutting operation, such as cutting bars or multi-strand cables. The fact that Barezzani discloses the use of multiple different styles of members is further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since this disclosure indicates that the particular style of members actuated by the electric device can be selected depending on the desired operation to be performed. This modification thus enhances the versatility of the device of Barezzani by offering an additional option for the type of working members to be attached to the device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani as modified by Van Schaik as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0337063 A1 to Puzio et al.
Barezzani, as modified, fails to disclose that the controller is configured to: determine a timing to start braking the pair of cutting blades based on the movement amounts detected by the movement amount detector as required by claim 4.
However, Puzio teaches a controller that is configured to determine a timing to start braking a blade of an electric device based on movement amounts detected by a movement amount detector (see paragraph 46; the movement amount detector of Puzio is the portion of the controller that processes signals from the Hall sensors, such that the movement amount detector of Puzio determines movement by processing the motor’s operation, which is consistent with the present specification at paragraph 35). Puzio teaches that by having the controller configured to determine a timing to start braking of the blade based on the movement amount, the controller can infer that the blade has jammed or cannot move further and to actuate the brake (see paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Barezzani, as modified, to determine a timing to start breaking the cutting blades based on movement amounts detected by the movement amount detector in view of the teachings of Puzio. This modification is advantageous to prevent continuing force being applied to the blades if the blades become jammed or cannot move further. Thus, potential damage to the cutting device is avoided because, by braking the motor, further forces are not provided to the blades in a jammed condition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani as modified by Van Schaik as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0151967 A1 to Kehoe et al.
Barezzani, as modified, fails to disclose that wherein when the pair of cutting blades are operating, the maximum current changer is configured to: change the maximum value to be smaller than a previous value at a timing before the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface as required by claim 6 (as discussed above with respect to claim 5, the maximum current changer of Barezzani, as modified, changes the current when one of the first and second members come into contact with the restriction surface, rather than before the contact as required by claim 6).
Kehoe, though, teaches providing an electric device with a maximum current changer that is configured to change a maximum value to be smaller than a previous value at a time prior to the end of an operational cycle (see paragraphs 63 and 64 and paragraph 34; put another way, Kehoe teaches that the maximum current changer initially provides a maximum amount of power to the motor to build pressure as quickly as possible during an operational cycle, and then to slows the motor by reducing the power supplied to the motor so that the rate of pressure increase in the tool is reduced, which is advantageous to reduce pressure overshoot per paragraph 75). Kehoe teaches that providing the maximum current changer with the ability to change the maximum current value to be smaller than a previous value during the operational cycle is advantageous in order to reduce pressure overshoot (see paragraph 75), which in turn is advantageous because the desired peak pressure is more accurately attained, the output force of the device is more consistent with a target value, and operation of the device is improved in quality, accuracy, and repeatability (see paragraph 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barezzani, as modified, to configure the maximum current changer to change the maximum value to be smaller than a previously value a timing before the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface in view of the teachings of Kehoe. Kehoe teaches that configuring a maximum current changer to reduce the maximum value of the power applied to the motor during the operational cycle of the electric device (which corresponds to a time before the first or second member of Barezzani, as modified, comes into contact with the restriction surface) is advantageous because, by reducing the rate of pressure increase, the amount of pressure overshoot can be minimized, which in turn leads to more accurate pressure being achieved by the device. The advantages of this modification include better attainment of a desired peak pressure and more accurate and repeatable operations. Moreover, the advantages further include power savings since unnecessary overshoot pressure is avoided (unnecessary overshoot pressure requires power to achieve, since the pressure is produced by powering the electric motor of Barezzani, as modified). Thus, following this modification, Barezzani, as modified, discloses that the maximum current changer changes the maximum current value during the operational cycle, which is prior to contact between either of the first and second members and one of the restriction surfaces.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani as modified by Van Schaik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0061135 A1 to Cerfeuillet.
Regarding claim 12, Barezzani, as modified, discloses that the contact detector is configured to perform the detection of the contact based on a current applied to the electric motor 6 (see paragraphs 57 and 59 of Barezzani).
Barezzani, as modified, fails to disclose that the contact detector is configured to perform the detect based on a voltage applied to the electric motor as required by claim 12.
Cerfeuillet, however, teaches that either of current and voltage consumed by an electric motor can be monitored in order to determine the progress of a cycle of an electric device (see paragraph 99). Thus, Cerfeuillet teaches that monitoring current and voltage of an electric device are equivalents for determining the progress of a cyclic operation of the electric device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results to substitute voltage as taught by Cerfeuillet in place of current as taught by Barezzani, as modified, as the motor load that is monitored by the contact detector of Barezzani. Barezzani’s contact detect monitors current, rather than voltage as required by claim 12. However, Cerfeuillet teaches that either of current and voltage can be monitored to determine the progress of an operation cycle of an electric device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the contact detector of Barezzani, as modified, by substituting monitoring motor voltage instead of monitoring motor current in view Cerfeuillet, since Cerfeuillet teaches that either of current and voltage can be monitored.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani as modified by Van Schaik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0337063 A1 to Puzio et al.
Regarding claim 13, Barezzani, as modified, discloses that the contact detector is configured to perform the detection of the contact based on a current supplied to the electric motor (see paragraphs 56-58 of Barezzani).
Barezzani, as modified, fails to disclose that the contract detector is configured to perform the detection of contact based on a number of rotations of the electric motor per unit time as required by claim 13.
However, Puzio teaches a contact detector (of controller 142; see paragraphs 44 and 46) that is configured to perform a detection of contact based on a number of rotations of an electric motor per unit time (see paragraphs 44 and 46, where the number of rotations of the electric motor is sensed by the rotation sensing circuit 146; the detection of contact is disclosed by the ‘jammed or cannot more [move, sic] further’ disclosure, since the contact is one instance in which additional movement is not possible). Puzio teaches that the contact detector also receives a current value of a motor of the device from a current sensor 148 (see paragraph 44). Puzio teaches that the controller can use the information from the rotation sensing circuit to determine speed and deceleration of the motor, so the controller can infer that a blade is jammed or cannot move further and act to shut down and/or brake the motor (see paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the contact detector of Barezzani, as modified, to perform detection of the contact based on a number of rotations of the electric motor per unit time in view of the teachings of Puzio. This modification is advantageous because the controller can then infer that a blade is jammed or cannot move further and act to shut down and/or brake the motor, which aids in preventing damage to the blades.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani as modified by Van Schaik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2023017789 A1 to Tetsuya et al.
Regarding claim 13, Barezzani, as modified, discloses that the contact detector is configured to perform the detection of the contact based on a current supplied to the electric motor (see paragraphs 56-58 of Barezzani) and/or based on a position between the first and second members (see paragraphs 61-64 of Barezzani and also paragraph 93 of Barezzani acknowledging that multiple manners of detecting contact can be used).
Regarding claim 14, Barezzani, as modified, discloses a movement amount detector (the movement amount detector being a function of the control circuit 9 that processes a signal from the distance sensor 24 per paragraphs 61-63, just as the ‘movement amount detector’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification) configured to detect movement amounts of the first member and the second member from a contact position defined when the contact detector detects that the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface (see paragraph 62 and Fig. 12; the detected movement amounts include all movement amounts, inclusive of movement amounts from the contact position; see also the modification of Barezzani below).
Barezzani, as modified, fails to disclose: that the contract detector is configured to perform the detection of contact based on a number of rotations of the electric motor per unit time as required by claim 13; that the the movement amount detector is configured to detect the movement amounts based on a rotation amount of the electric motor as required by claim 14; a rotation sensor configured to output a pulse signal each time an output shaft of the electric motor rotates by a predetermined angle, wherein the movement amount detector is configured to detect the movement amounts based on a count value of the pulse signal as required by claim 15; and that the controller is configured to reset the count value to zero when the contact detector detects that the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface, wherein the count value represents the movement amounts from the contact position as required by claim 16.
Tetsuya, though, teaches performing detection of a position of a blade 72, including determining when the blade 72 has reached the end of its stroke, based on a number of rotations of an electric motor 50 per time unit (see page 9 of the English translation at the paragraph beginning, ‘Further, when the operation of the trigger 30 ...’, where Tetsuya refers to the end of the stroke of the blade 72 as the ‘reverse position’). [Claim 13] Tetsuya further teaches: a movement amount detector that is configured to detect movement amounts of the blade 72 based on a rotation amount of an electric motor 50 (the movement amount detector being the portion of the controller 100 that process the signal from sensor 100A; see page 9 of the English translation at the paragraph beginning, ‘Further, when the operation of the trigger 30 ...’, where Tetsuya refers to the end of the stroke of the blade 72 as the ‘reverse position’) [claim 14]; Tetsuya teaches a rotation sensor configured to output a pulse signal each time an output shaft of the electric motor 50 rotates by a predetermined angle (one of the Hall ICs of unit 100A of page 9 of the English translation at the paragraph beginning, ‘Further, when the operation of the trigger 30 ...’; see also Fig. 2; a Hall sensor outputs a pulse signal each time a magnet of the motor passes by), wherein the movement amount detector is configured to detect the movement amounts based on a count value of the pulse signal (page 9 of the English translation at the paragraph beginning, ‘Further, when the operation of the trigger 30 ...’) [claim 15]; and that a controller 100 is configured to reset the count value to zero when the blade 72 is fully moved to its cutting position (see page 11 of the English language translation at the paragraph beginning, ‘At time T3, ...’) ] [claim 16]. Whereas the contact detector of Barezzani, when the contact provider only processes data from the current sensor, is only able to detect contact of the first and second members, and not the positions of the first and second members, the movement amount detector of Tetsuya, which processes data from regarding an amount of rotation of the electric motor from the rotation sensor, is able to detect a position of a member along an entire path of the member. Moreover, Tetsuya discloses that the rotation sensor is usable in combination with a motor load sensor that determines an end point of member movement (see the English translation of Tetsuya at page 15 at the paragraph beginning, ‘Further, for example ...’).
Therefore, in considering an embodiment of Barezzani, as modified, that includes a current sensor but not a distance sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such an embodiment of Barezzani, as modified, with the movement amount detector and rotation sensor as taught by Tetsuya. This modification is advantageous in order to provide information related to the position of the first and second members along the entire paths of travel of the members. For example, an opening amount of the first and second members can be set and then the members can be controlled to only open to a degree necessary to receive some particular workpiece as a result of this modification. Further still, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art teaches each element, albeit not in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. Barezzani already acknowledges providing a contact sensor based on a load of the motor and also providing a position sensor for the members (in the form of a distance sensor), and Tetsuya teaches using its motor rotation sensor in combination with detecting a load on a motor. The motor rotation sensor of Tetsuya when provided to Barezzani continues to monitor a member position, and Barezzani already contemplates this functionality (albeit achieves with a different style of sensor). Thus, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Alternatively, considering an embodiment of Barezzani, as modified, that does include the distance sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the movement amount detector and rotation sensor of Tetsuya for the movement amount detector and distance sensor of Barezzani, as modified, under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Barezzani, as modified, differs from the claimed invention (when Barezzani includes the distance sensor as permitted by paragraph 93) by the substitution of the movement amount detector and rotation sensor of Tetsuya in place of the movement amount detector and distance sensor of Barezzani. Tetsuya teaches the substituted components, and their function of determining position of a cutting member in a tool from a position at which a motor load increases is also known in the art via Tetsuya. One of ordinary skill in the art could have performed this substitution and the results would have been predictable because (1) Barezzani teaches that various types of sensors for determining the positions of the members can be provided and (2) Tetsuya teaches that a motor rotation sensor is usable to track a movable members position from a point at which a motor load increases (which is how Barezzani is also able to determine member contact).
Further still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reset the count value to zero as taught by Tetsuya when the contact detector of Barezzani detects that the restriction surfaces of the first and second members come into contact with each other, because such a position is one known reference position of the first and second members from which movement can be tracked. The particular position from which movement of the members is tracked does alter the functionality of the device, and merely changes the particular reference value from which movement is tracked. It is obvious to consider any known reference position as the point from which movement is tracked, whether the reference position is a fully opened position or a fully closed position. One of ordinary skill in the art could select from among either of the fully opened and the fully closed positions of the members as the reference value from which to begin counting movement, and either option achieves the exact same result. That is, it is inconsequential when the reference value is the fully opened positions, and the amount that the members move toward one another is counted, or whether the reference value is the fully closed position, and the count value represents the movement amounts of the blades away from each other – either of these two options tracks the positions of the first and second members, only with different reference points. One of ordinary skill in the art, being a mechanical engineer, is capable from courses in dynamics from selecting one reference point from among multiple choices and tracking positions of members relative to the selected reference point. As such, the features zeroing the count value when the contact detector detects contact (i.e., when the closed position is used as the reference point) and the count value representing movement from the contact positions (i.e., counting the amount that the members move from the closed position, rather than from the open position) as required by claim 16 are obvious.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0087709 A1 to Barezzani in view of US Pat. No. 2,745,177 to Kortick, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 3,706,245 to Van Schaik.
Regarding claim 1, Barezzani discloses an electric cutting device (paragraphs 1 and 2 disclose the device being for ‘cutting’, and the device is also electric due to including an electric motor 6 and a battery 5), comprising:
a pair of tools having a first tool and a second tool (see the annotated Fig. 7A below), the pair of tools being configured to clamp an object (see paragraphs 38 and 40; paragraph 38 describes “a compression and/or cutting tool”, where compression includes clamping; note also that, the ‘configured to clamp and cut an object’ feature is satisfied upon the modification of Barezzani in view of Kortick below);
an electric motor 6 configured to generate a driving force necessary for operating the pair of tools (see paragraphs 39 and 40; the driving force of the motor 6 is ‘necessary for operating’ the pair of tools because without the driving force produced by the motor, the pump 11 is not operated, and thus the pair of tools is not operated);
a controller (the controller being a function of the control circuit 9 that controls operation of the motor 6, just as the ‘control unit’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification) configured to control an operation of the electric motor 6 (see the Abstract and paragraph 84);
a first member provided with the first tool (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below);
a second member provided with the second tool (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below);
a restriction surface configured to come into contact with at least one of the first member and the second member (see the annotated portion of Fig. 7A below and the uppermost of the left three images of Fig. 7A showing contact between the restriction surfaces of the first and second members; see also paragraphs 15 and 24, describing the first and second members, which are referred to as jaws, coming into contact with each other, where the contact includes contact of the restriction surfaces because the restriction surfaces are an uppermost surface of the second member and a lowermost surface of the first member; see also the modification of Barezzani below) to restrict an operable range of the pair of tools (see the uppermost of the left three images of Fig. 7A showing the operable range being restricted; see also paragraphs 15 and 24; this feature is further satisfied upon the modification of Barezzani in view of Kortick below); and
a contact detector (the contact detector being a function of the control circuit 9 that processes a signal from the current sensor 23 per paragraphs 57-59, just as the ‘contact detector’ as disclosed in the present application is a function of the control board 500 per paragraph 33 of the present specification; i.e., the contact detector in the present application is not a sensor, but is instead a function of the control board that processes a signal from a sensor) configured to detect that the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface (see paragraphs 57-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Barezzani discloses that when the pair of tools operate in a closing direction (i.e., as the first and second members become closer to one another as can be seen in Fig. 7A), the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface at the same time as or before the pair of tools come into contact with each other (see the annotated Fig. 7A above; because the restriction surfaces of the first and second members are along same planes as the respective tools, the first and second members come into contact with each other at the same time as the pair of tools come into contact with each other; additionally, see the modification of Barezzani below).
Although Barezzani discloses that the device is able to perform a cutting operation (see paragraphs 1 and 2), at least for purposes of this rejection Barezzani is not considered as disclosing that the first and second members are provided with cutting blades. However, Barezzani does disclose that its cutting device can be provided with different types of first and second members (see three different configurations of the members in Figs. 7, 8, and 9; see also paragraph 3). As such, Barezzani is considered as failing to disclose: a pair of cutting blades having a first blade and a second blade, that the first member is provided with the first blade, that the second member is provided with the second blade, and that the operable range is of the pair of cutting blades, as required by claim 1. Barezzani also fails to disclose that the pair of cutting blades come into contact with each other as required by claim 7, and when the pair of cutting blades operating in the closing direction, the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface at the same time as the pair of cutting blades come into contact with each other as required by claim 8.
Kortick teaches a cutting device having two members 26 and 27 (note also that each member can alternatively be considered as additionally including a respective one of the blade holders 18), with the two members provided with cutting blades (the cutting blades being defined by beveled portions 29), and with the each of the two members also provided with a respective restriction surface (see the annotated Figs. below illustrating two options for the restriction surfaces, where the second option is applicable when the members are interpreted as including the blade holders 18). Turning to claimed features, Kortick teaches a pair of cutting blades (the cutting blades defined by the beveled portions 29) having a first cutting blade (the cutting blade of member 26) and a second cutting blade (the cutting blade of member 27), where the first member is provided with the first blade (see Fig. 1), and the second member is provided with the second cutting blade (see Fig. 1), and a restriction surface (see the annotated Figs. below; in each option, there are two restriction surfaces – one defined by the upper member relative to Fig. 1 and another defined by the lower member relative to Fig. 1) is configured to come into contact with at least one of the first member and the second member (the two restriction surfaces contact each other as can be seen in Figs. 1, 2, and 4 and also as described at col. 1, line 72 to col. 2, line 3 and col. 2, lines 33-36; consistent with the present disclosure, the restriction surfaces are permitted to be portions of the first and second members) to restrict an operable range of the pair of cutting blades (see Figs. 1 and 4 – the blades cannot pivot any additional amount toward each other following contact of the restriction surfaces). Additionally, the cutting blades are configured to clamp and cut an object (see Fig. 1, where this feature is satisfied because the blades press against opposing sides of the workpiece, thus clamping the workpiece, at a start of cutting the objection; also, the blades perform the clamping function to the same extent as the blades disclosed in the present application). [Claim 1] Kortick teaches that when the pair of cutting blades operate in the closing direction, the at least one of the first member and the second member comes into contact with the restriction surface at the same time as the pair of cutting blades come into contact with each other (see Figs. 1, 2, and 4; see also col. 1, line 72 to col. 2, line 3 and col. 2, lines 33-36; in Kortick, because pivoting is about a single pivot axis defined by pivot 11, and since the restriction surfaces and cutting edges are in common planes, respectively, the restriction surfaces and the cutting edges contact one another at the same time). [Claims 7 and 8] Kortick teaches that the configuration of its first and second members and first and second blades is advantageous to permit achieving a flush cut (see col. 1, lines 51-52). Moreover, Barezzani also acknowledges use of its device to perform a cutting operation (see paragraph 2), along with the interchangeability of the working elements of the device (see Figs. 7-9).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
672
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of the facts that Barezzani contemplates its electric device being usable for performing a cutting operation (although Barezzani does not explicitly illustrate any cutting blades usable for performing the cutting operation), and that Barezzani contemplates its device being usable with different types of working members, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric device of Barezzani with an additional working device (i.e., in addition to those illustrated in Figs. 7-9) including the first member and second members in the form of the members of Kortick, which members include first and second cutting blades and first and second restriction surfaces, respectively. This modification is advantageous when it is desired to use the electric device of Barezzani to perform a cutting operation, in particular a flush cutting operation (e.g., cutting a sprue from a workpiece, or alternatively cutting a screw or nail extending from a surface). The fact that Barezzani discloses the use of multiple different styles of members is further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since this disclosure indicates that the particular style of members actuated by the electric device can be selected depending on the desired operation to be performed. This modification thus enhances the versatility of the device of Barezzani by offering an additional option for the type of working members to be attached to the device. Moreover, although Kortick discloses a hand-actuated cutting tool, it is nonetheless within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use a linear tool motion to pivotably drive two cutting blades in view of the teachings of Van Schaik. As such, Van Schaik is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to adapt cutting members, such as those disclosed by Kortick, to be operated by a linear tool motion such that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to adapt the cutting members of Kortick to be usable with a device of Barezzani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts that Barezzani, even if modified by Van Schaik, does not include a teaching of detecting when at least one of the first and second members come into contact with a restriction surface. This argument is not persuasive. Most importantly, the members of Van Schaik includes stops 130 and 131 that define restriction surfaces, and each member contacts the restriction surface of the stop of the other member when the members of Van Schaik contact one another. Indeed, Van Schaik teaches contact between each member and a restriction surface of the other member in a nearly identical manner as illustrated in Fig. 9 of the present drawings. Further still, even prior to the modification Barezzani teaches restriction surfaces where the first and second members contact one another as indicated above. The Applicant further offers no justification or reasoned support for the Applicant’s assertion. As such, the assertion is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights