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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on January 4, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310007703.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on January 18, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202320142955.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 7, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310373618.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an impact mechanism for…” in claims 1, 16 and 17. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the impact mechanism” as including, “a main shaft driven by the drive shaft, an impact block driven by the main shaft, and a hammer” (see paragraph 21). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “an impact mechanism”, is being interpreted as a main shaft driven by the drive shaft, an impact block driven by the main shaft, and a hammer and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a switching portion configured to…” in claims 1, 16 and 17. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the switching portion” as being, “operated to set the direction of rotation of the motor” (see paragraph 78). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a switching portion”, is being interpreted as any mechanism that can be operated to set the direction of rotation of the motor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a controller is configured…” in claims 1, 16 and 17. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the controller” as being, “controller”, “processor”, “central processing unit”, “CPU”, and “microcontroller unit (MCU)” are interchangeable” (see paragraph 57). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a controller”, is being interpreted as any of the interchangeable units above and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a speed regulation portion…” in claim 2. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the speed regulation portion” as a, “trigger switch” (see paragraph 73). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a speed regulation portion”, is being interpreted as a trigger switch and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection mechanism for…” in claim 4. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the detection mechanism” as, “collect[ing] the current of the electric motor” (see paragraph 85). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a detection mechanism”, is being interpreted as any mechanism that collects the current of the motor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first detection assembly for…” in claims 6 and 7. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the first detection assembly” as being, “an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism 15 starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft 131.,” (see paragraph 92). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a first detection assembly”, is being interpreted as an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a second detection assembly for…” in claim 8. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the second detection assembly” as being, “a position sensor,” (see paragraph 92). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a second detection assembly”, is being interpreted as a position sensor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a third detection assembly for…” in claim 9. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the third detection assembly” as, “detecting at least one of the rotational speed of the electric motor, the current of the electric motor, the freewheeling time, and a commutation parameter,” (see paragraph 94). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a third detection assembly”, is being interpreted as any assembly that detects at least one of the rotational speed of the electric motor, the current of the electric motor, the freewheeling time, and a commutation parameter and/or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13 and 17-20 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.
Claims 13 and 17 disclose, “a first duty cycle is less than a second duty cycle” in the last two lines of each claim. However, each of these claims previously disclosed a first duty cycle and a second duty cycle, therefore it is unclear if the second recitation of the duty cycles is the same as the first recitation of the duty cycles. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dey et al. (EP 4056321, cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 1, Dey et al. disclose an impact tool (10), comprising:
a motor (15) comprising a drive shaft (not labeled but seen within 15 in Figure 21a) rotating about a first axis (i.e. horizontal axis in Figure 21a);
an output shaft (370) for outputting torque externally to operate a fastener;
an impact mechanism (i.e. impact mechanism 300, which meets the limitation of the impact mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8a above) for applying an impact force to the output shaft;
a switching portion (i.e. forward/reverse selector 50, which meets the limitation of the switching portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8b above) configured to set a direction of rotation of the motor to a forward rotation direction in which the fastener is tightened or a reverse rotation direction in which the fastener is loosened (see paragraph 11); and
a controller (i.e. controller 135, which meets the limitation of the controller, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8c above) for controlling the motor (see paragraph 14);
wherein the controller is configured to:
when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction (i.e. when in the “bolt removal mode” see Figure 35 and paragraph 83), the drive shaft rotates at a first speed (i.e. at 1605 in Figure 38 and paragraph 92, which corresponds to a user adjusted “Removal Speed” by using the “Removal Speed selector 1380” in Figure 35.), and, after the impact mechanism applies the impact force to the output shaft for a preset time (i.e. step 1625), control the drive shaft to rotate at a second speed (i.e. maximum speed 1610 Figure 38, which corresponds to a user adjusted “Max Speed (RPM)” by using the “maximum speed selector 1355” in Figure 35) when it is determine that the fastener is in a tightened state according to a load parameter (i.e. motor current, paragraph 93) of the output shaft, wherein the second speed is greater than the first speed (see lines 25-28 in paragraph 94 for disclosing “as shown in FIG. 35, the maximum speed corresponds to the second desired speed described in FIG. 38”. The examiner also notes that a user could select the “Removal Speed” which corresponds to the first speed such that it is 350 RPM [see Figure 35] and select the “Max Speed (RPM)” which corresponds to the second speed such that it is greater than 350 RPM [see Figure 35]).
In reference to claim 2, Dey et al. disclose further comprising a speed regulation portion (i.e. at 1320, Figure 33 or at 1355 in Figure 35 or at 1615 in Figure 38 or at 1815 Figure 40, which are all equivalent to the speed regulation portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8d above), wherein a rotational speed of the drive shaft is adjusted according to a trigger stroke of the speed regulation portion.
In reference to claim 3, Dey et al. disclose that the first speed is configured to be a speed at which the drive shaft rotates when the trigger stroke of the speed regulation portion is adjusted to a limit (see 1810 and 1815 in Figure 40).
In reference to claim 4, Dey et al. disclose further comprising a detection mechanism (i.e. current sensor, see paragraph 84, which meets the limitation of the detection mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8e above) for detecting the load parameter of the output shaft and an impact state of the impact mechanism (see paragraph 84).
In reference to claim 5, Dey et al. disclose that the controller acquires an output signal of the detection mechanism, determines that the fastener is in the tightened state according to the output signal, and sends a signal to the motor to control the drive shaft to rotate at the second speed (at 1610, Figure 38).
In reference to claim 6, Dey et al. disclose that the detection mechanism comprises a first detection assembly (i.e. sensors that detect an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft, see paragraph 71, which meets the limitation of the first detection assembly, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8f above) for detecting the impact state of the impact mechanism, and the first detection assembly comprises an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft (see paragraph 71).
In reference to claim 7, Dey et al. disclose that the detection mechanism comprises a first detection assembly (i.e. sensors that detect an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft, see paragraph 71, which meets the limitation of the first detection assembly, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8f above) for detecting the impact state of the impact mechanism, and the first detection assembly comprises an impact state detection portion for detecting an impact time parameter (at 915) of the impact mechanism (see paragraph 71).
In reference to claim 8, Dey et al. disclose that the detection mechanism comprises a second detection assembly (i.e. position sensors that detect an impact detection portion for determining that the impact mechanism starts to apply the impact force to the output shaft, see paragraph 71, which meets the limitation of the second detection assembly, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8g above) for detecting the load parameter of the output shaft, and the load parameter of the output shaft comprises at least one of a rotational speed of the output shaft, an angle of rotation of the output shaft (paragraph 72), and rotational acceleration of the output shaft (see paragraph 76).
In reference to claim 9, Dey et al. disclose that the detection mechanism comprises a third detection assembly (i.e. assembly 135 that detects at least one of the rotational speed of the electric motor, the current of the electric motor, the freewheeling time, and a commutation parameter, see paragraph 71, which meets the limitation of the first detection assembly, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8h above) for detecting the load parameter of the output shaft, and the load parameter of the output shaft comprises at least one of a rotational speed of the motor (see paragraph 76), a current of the motor, a motor commutation parameter, and freewheeling time (paragraph 76).
In reference to claim 10, Dey et al. disclose that the controller is configured to limit a torque output of the motor when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to a reverse rotation and it is determined that a load of the output shaft is reduced or less than or equal to a preset load according to the load parameter of the output shaft (paragraph 95).
In reference to claim 11, Dey et al. disclose that a tightening torque of the impact tool for the fastener when the motor rotates at the first speed is a first output torque, the tightening torque of the impact tool for the fastener when the motor rotates at the second speed is a second output torque, and the first output torque is less than the second output torque (paragraph 95).
In reference to claim 12, Dey et al. disclose that an output power of the motor when the motor rotates at the first speed (i.e. a “Removal Speed” set at a low value [i.e. 350 rpm], Figure 35) is a first output power, the output power of the motor when the motor rotates at the second speed (i.e. a “Max Speed (RPM)” set at a higher value [i.e. 400 rpm], Figure 35) is a second output power, and the first output power is less than the second output power (Figure 35).
In reference to claim 13, As Best Understood, Dey et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to: when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction, control the motor to start with a first duty cycle signal (i.e. the “first PWM duty cycle”, paragraph 87), determine that the fastener is in the tightened state according to the load parameter of the output shaft, and adjust the motor such that the motor operates with a second duty cycle signal (i.e. the “new PWM duty cycle”, paragraph 87), wherein the first duty cycle is less than the second duty cycle (see paragraphs 87 and 89).
In reference to claim 14, Dey et al. disclose that when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction, the motor is controlled to start with the first duty cycle signal (paragraph 87), it is determined that the fastener is in a loosened state according to the load parameter of the output shaft, and the controller controls the motor to operate with the first duty cycle signal (see paragraphs 87 and 89).
In reference to claim 15, Dey et al. disclose that the impact mechanism comprises a main shaft (not labeled) driven by the drive shaft (Figure 21a), an impact block (75) driven by the main shaft, and a hammer anvil (70) that mates with the impact block and is struck by the impact block, wherein the impact block is rotatable and axially movable relative to the hammer anvil to apply a continuous rotational impact to the hammer anvil (Figures 1, 23 and 24).
In reference to claim 16, Dey et al. disclose an impact tool (10), comprising:
a motor (15) comprising a drive shaft (not labeled but seen within 15 in Figure 21a) rotating about a first axis (i.e. horizontal axis in Figure 21a);
an output shaft (370) for outputting torque externally to operate a fastener;
an impact mechanism (i.e. impact mechanism 300, which meets the limitation of the impact mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8a above) for applying an impact force to the output shaft;
a switching portion (i.e. forward/reverse selector 50, which meets the limitation of the switching portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8b above) configured to set a direction of rotation of the motor to a forward rotation direction in which the fastener is tightened or a reverse rotation direction in which the fastener is loosened (see paragraph 11); and
a controller (i.e. controller 135, which meets the limitation of the controller, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8c above) for controlling the motor (see paragraph 14);
wherein the controller is configured to:
when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction (i.e. when in the “bolt removal mode” see Figure 35 and paragraph 83), the drive shaft rotates at a first speed (i.e. at 1605 in Figure 38 and paragraph 92, which corresponds to a user adjusted “Removal Speed” by using the “Removal Speed selector 1380” in Figure 35.) detect a parameter (i.e. motor current, paragraph 93) indicating a load of the output shaft (paragraph 93), determine that the fastener is in a tightened state according to the parameter, and automatically send the motor a signal for improving a speed of the drive shaft (i.e. by using the “maximum speed”, see lines 25-28 in paragraph 94 for disclosing “as shown in FIG. 35, the maximum speed corresponds to the second desired speed described in FIG. 38”.).
In reference to claim 17, As Best Understood, Dey et al. disclose an impact tool (10), comprising:
a motor (15) comprising a drive shaft (not labeled but seen within 15 in Figure 21a) rotating about a first axis (i.e. horizontal axis in Figure 21a);
an output shaft (370) for outputting torque externally to operate a fastener;
an impact mechanism (i.e. impact mechanism 300, which meets the limitation of the impact mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8a above) for applying an impact force to the output shaft;
a switching portion (i.e. forward/reverse selector 50, which meets the limitation of the switching portion, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8b above) configured to set a direction of rotation of the motor to a forward rotation direction in which the fastener is tightened or a reverse rotation direction in which the fastener is loosened (see paragraph 11); and
a controller (i.e. controller 135, which meets the limitation of the controller, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 8c above) for controlling the motor (see paragraph 14);
wherein the controller is configured to, when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction (i.e. when in the “bolt removal mode” see Figure 35 and paragraph 83), control the motor to start with a first duty cycle signal (i.e. the “first PWM duty cycle”, paragraph 87), and, when it is determined that the fastener is in a tightened state according to a load parameter (i.e. motor current, paragraph 93) of the output shaft, adjust the motor such that the motor operates with a second duty cycle signal (i.e. the “new PWM duty cycle”, paragraph 87), wherein the first duty cycle is less than the second duty cycle (see paragraphs 87 and 89).
In reference to claim 18, Dey et al. disclose that the controller is configured to, when the direction of rotation of the motor is set to the reverse rotation direction, control the motor to start with the first duty cycle signal (paragraph 93), and, when it is determined that a load (i.e. motor current) of the output shaft is less than or equal to a preset load according to the load parameter of the output shaft, keep the motor operating with the first duty cycle signal (paragraph 93).
In reference to claim 19, Dey et al. disclose that when the controller controls the motor to operate with the first duty cycle signal, the controller limits a torque (at 1385) output of the motor according to an operation instruction of a user (Figure 35).
In reference to claim 20, Dey et al. disclose that when the controller controls the motor to operate with the second duty cycle signal and it is determined that the load of the output shaft is reduced or less than or equal to the preset load according to the load parameter of the output shaft, the controller limits a torque output of the motor (Figure 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takano et al. (2016/0079887) relates to an electric tool, and more particularly to, an electric tool having improved a control method of a motor to be used as a driving source, wherein a motor configured to be driven by PWM controlling a semiconductor switching element; a trigger configured to adjust startup and rotation of the motor; a changeover switch configured to switch a rotation direction of the motor between a forward rotation and a reverse rotation; a power transmission mechanism configured to rotate a tip tool by the motor, and a controller configured to control rotation of the motor. When the reverse rotation is set by the changeover switch, the controller PWM controls the semiconductor switching element at a high duty ratio after the trigger is pulled to drive the motor, and thereafter drives the motor at a state where the high duty ratio is changed to a low duty ratio (see Abstract and Figures 1-12).
Ng et al. (2016/0121467) discloses an impact driver having an impact driver control system which can activate a driver release. The activation of a driver release can be controlled by an electronic controller which can be set to activate a driver release when parameters of the impact drivers meet specified conditions (see Abstract and Figures 1-28).
Mashiko et al. (2013/0025892) discloses a similar tool including an electronic pulse driver comprising a motor, a hammer, an anvil, an end tool mounting unit, a power supply unit, a temperature detecting unit, and a controller (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723