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
The preliminary amendment filed on 02/16/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, line 5, “a tool holding part being provided in the output part” does not agree with Fig.7. As shown in the figure, the tool holding part 76 is provided “on” the output part 68. It is suggested “in the output part” be changed to --on the output part--.
(2) In claim 6, lines 7-8, “two portions” is vague. Is it in addition to “two portions” cited at line 3 of claim 5?
(3) In claim 13, line 4, “the circular arc part” lacks antecedent basis. It appears the phrase should read --the circular arc portion--. Note line 2 of the claim.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2019 131 292 (cited in the attached PTO -892 with English translation).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, DE ‘292 discloses a working machine (1) comprising:
a motor (inherent, note the machine is an “electric” hand tool device, see the English abstract);
an output part (8) oscillating around an axis (12) extending along an up-down direction when receiving a rotational force of the motor;
a tool holding part (4a) being provided on the output part (8) and being able to hold a tip tool (3);
a clamp shaft (6) being supported by the output part (8);
an urging member (9) urging the clamp shaft (6) upward;
a clamp part (4b) being attachable/detachable to/from a lower portion (6b) of the clamp shaft (b) and urging the tip tool (3) from below when being attached to the clamp shaft (6); and
a lever (5) being rotatable around a support shaft (5b) and moving the clamp shaft (6) in the up-down direction when being operated to rotate between a first position (Fig.3) and a second position (Fig.2) in a rotational direction,
wherein the tool holding part (4a) and the clamp part (4b) fix the tip tool (3) to the output part (8) when sandwiching the tip tool (3) therebetween,
the lever (5) moves the clamp shaft (6) downward relative to the output part (8) to separate the tool holding part (4a) and the clamp part (4b) from each other in the up-down direction when being rotated from the first position (Fg.3) to the second position (Fig.2) substantially as claimed except DE ‘292 fails to disclose a characteristic value "Q" being equal to or smaller than 50 (N/degree) when a relation of "Q = (A x D) / (B x C)” is established, where a term "A" (N) represents an urging force of the urging member (9) provided when the lever (5) is located at the first position (Fig.3), a term "B" (mm) represents a lever length from a center position of the support shaft (5b) to a tip position of the lever (5) in an intersection direction intersecting the up-down direction, a term "C" (degree) represents a turning angle from the first position (Fig.3) to the second position (Fig.2) of the lever (5), and a term "D" (mm) represents a movement amount of the clamp shaft (6) provided when the lever (5) is rotated from the first position (Fig.3) to the second position (Fig.2).
While the working machine (10) of DE ‘292 possesses a characteristic value “Q” as defined above, DE ‘292 does not explicitly mention the value being in the range of equal to or smaller than 50 N/degree (or equal to or smaller than 30 N/degree as required by claim 14 or equal to or larger than 5 N/degree as required by claim 15). However, the claimed range for the characteristic value “Q” is not patentably distinct over DE ‘292 as the characteristic value depends upon the four variables A, D, C and D, namely “urging force”, “lever length”, “turning angle” and “movement amount”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select any unspecified amount of “urging force” for the urging member (9), any unspecified amount of “lever length” of the lever (5), any unspecified amount of turning angle of the lever (5), and any unspecified amount of movement of the clamp shaft (6) as desired that results in the characteristic value equal to or smaller than 50 N/degree because the selection of the variables depends more upon an obvious matter of a manufacturer’s choice than on any inventive concept.
Regarding claim 2, the clamp part (4b) of DE ‘292 includes a shaft part (SP, see Fig.8 as annotated below) being attachable/detachable to/from the clamp shaft (6, e.g., by having a pion 11 of the clamp part 4b engaging/disengaging a groove 10 formed in a lower shaft part 6b of the clamp shaft 6, see Fig.5); and a contact part (CP) protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the shaft part (SP) and being in contact with a lower surface of the tip tool (3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the clamp part (4b) of DE ‘292 includes a pin (11, see Fig.8) extending from the outer peripheral surface of the shaft part (SP) in a width direction intersecting both the up-down direction and the intersection direction, and the urging force of the urging member (9) is transmitted to the clamp part (4b) when the pin (11) engages with the clamp shaft (6).
Regarding claim 9, while DE ‘292 is silent about the lever length of the lever (5) being smaller than 70 mm, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a desirable/workable lever length, including the claimed smaller than 70 mm, for the lever (5), depending upon an obvious matter of design choice as a smaller lever length is more compact, and a longer lever length requires less force to move the clamp shaft (6) downward at the same movement amount.
Regarding claim 10, in DE ‘292, the turning angle of the lever (5) is equal to or larger than 100 degrees (note Figs.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, while DE ‘292 is silent about the movement amount of the clamp shaft (6) being equal to or larger than 3.5 mm, however, the claimed range is not patentable distinct over DE “292 because the movement amount depends more upon the urging force of the urging member (9), the lever length of the lever (5), and the turning angle of the lever (5) than on any inventive concept.
Regarding claim 13, the cam part (5a) of DE ‘292 has a circular arc portion (see Fig.3) being capable of pressing the clamp shaft (6) but is silent about a radius of curvature of the circular arc portion being smaller than 6 mm. However, there is no criticality of having a radius of curvature of the circular arc portion smaller than 6 mm, so long as the circular arc portion performs the requisite function of pressing the clamp shaft, the exact radius of curvature of the circular arc portion whether is smaller than 6 mm or is 7 mm depends more upon an obvious matter of design choice than on any inventive concept.
3. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2019 131 292 (cited in the attached PTO-892 with English translation) as applied to claims 2 and 1, respectively, and further in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0183017, hereinafter “Ito”).
Regarding claim 4, the working machine (1) of DE ‘292 as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except the tool tip (3) lacks hole parts, and the tool holding part (4) lacks protrusions for engaging with the hole parts.
Ito shows a working machine (10) comprising a tip tool (52) having a plurality of hole parts (53), and a tool holding part (50) having a plurality of protrusions (51) engaging with the hole parts (53) when the tip tool (52) is attached to the tool holding part (50).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify DE ‘292 by providing the tip tool (3) with hole parts, and the tool holding part (4) with protrusions engaging with the hole parts for aligning the tip tool (3) and the holding part (4) when attached as taught by Ito.
Regarding claim 12, the lever (5) of DE ‘292 includes a cam part (5a) being in contact with the clamp shaft (6) in the up-down direction and pressing the clamp shaft (6) downward except DE ‘292 does not explicitly mention there is a distance between the cam part (5a) and the clamp shaft (6) when the lever (5) is located at the first position (Fig.3).
Ito shows a working machine (10) comprising a lever (73) including a cam part (74) being in contact with a shaft (42) of the working machine in an up-down direction and pressing the clamp shaft (42) downward, and a distance between the cam part (74) and the shaft (42) in the up-down direction provided when the lever (73) is located at a first position (see Fig.2) is larger than 0 mm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify DE ‘292 by having the cam part (5a) and the clamp shaft (6) spaced from each other when the lever (5) is not in use (e.g., at a first position – Fig.3) to avoid the weight of the lever (5) added to the urging member (9) as taught by Ito. The claimed range of spacing being smaller than 5 mm is not patentable distinct over DE ‘292 as modified, as long as the cam part (5a) and the clamp shaft (6) are spaced apart from each other, whether the distance is smaller than 5 mm or greater than 5 mm depends more upon an obvious matter of design choice than on any inventive concept.
4. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2019 131 292 (cited in the attached PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0183017) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0022816, hereinafter “Kuehne”).
Regarding claim 5, each of the protrusions (61 shown in Fig.6 of Ito) in the working machine of DE ‘292 as modified above does not have “a tapered part”.
Kuehne shows a working machine comprising a tip tool (14f, see Fig.32) having a plurality of hole parts (350), and a tool holding part (250, see Fig.31) having a plurality of protrusions (258) engaging with the hole parts (350) when the top tool (14f) is attached to the tool holding part (250), and each protrusion (258) including a tapered part (26) in contact with the hole part (350) at least at two portions of the hole part (350).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify DE ‘292 by having each protrusion to include a tapered part for receiving the hole part in a wedging manner for a more secure engagement as taught by Kuehne.
Regarding claim 6, DE ‘292 as modified has the protrusions protrude downward from the tool holding part (4a) in order to receive hole parts of the tip tool (3), and when a virtual line (272, referring to Fig.31 of Kuehne) passing through a center of the protrusion (258) and extending along an up-down direction is regarded as a reference line (272), the tapered part (260, see Fig.31) is in contact with the hole part (350, see Fig.32) at least at two portions symmetric to each other across the reference line (272, referring to Figs.31-32 and paragraph [0015], lines 15-19 of Kuehne).
Regarding claim 7, the lever (5) of DE ‘292 is provided to be rotatable from the first position (Fig.3) to the second position (Fig.2) by a load, but DE ‘292 fails to mention the load being equal to or smaller than 50 N. However, the load needs to be applied for rotating the lever from a first position to the second position depends upon the length of the lever (5) and the urging force of the urging member (9) than on any inventive concept.
Regarding claim 8, the urging member (9) of DE ‘292 is a coil spring (9), but DE ‘292 fails to mention the urging force of the urging member (9) when the lever (5) is located at the first position (at rest, not in use, see Fig.3) is equal to or smaller than 500N. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a certain spring constant for the urging member (9) of DE ‘292 so that a desired force is needed for actuating the lever (5) to overcome the urging force, including the claimed range of equal to or smaller than 400 N, of the urging member (9).
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Nos. 10,906,153; 11,052,475; 12,134,177 and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2012/0139196 and 2013/0180747 each shows a working machine equipped with a clamping part for clamping a tip tool held by a tool holding part, and a lever for moving the clamping part between a released position and a clamped position to release or clamp the tip tool.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0211951 is cited to show a mounting part (38, see Figs.23-24) equipped with protrusions (76) for engaging hole parts (198) formed on a tip tool (14d) for mounting the tip tool (14d) on the mounting part (38).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724