DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the first mode of operation” and “the second mode of operation” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the respective first maximum torque level” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the respective second maximum torque level” and “the corresponding first maximum torque level” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, “the application class hard screwdriving” and “the application class hard screwdriving” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “the application” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the model signal waveform”, “the application classes”, “the model”, “the comparison”, and “the ascertained match score” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, “the match” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the example applications” and “the selection” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “the example applications” and “the application classes” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is indefinite because a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). The scope of claim 19 is unclear because claim 19 falls across two statutory categories, such that it is unclear when infringement occurs.
Additionally, “a hand-held power tool” and “an electric motor” in claim 19 are indefinite because it is unclear if “a hand-held power tool” and “an electric motor” in claim 19 are the same as “a hand-held power tool” and “an electric motor” in claim 1. For examination purposes, “a hand-held power tool” and “an electric motor” in claim 19 is being interpreted to mean “the hand-held power tool” and “the electric motor”.
Regarding claims 2, 6-9, 15-18, and 20, claims 2, 6-9, 15-18, and 20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beckert et al (US 2019/0047133), hereinafter Beckert.
Regarding claim 1, Beckert discloses a method of operating a hand-held power tool (Fig. 1, item 1) which includes an electric motor (Fig. 1, item 3), comprising:
selecting an application class (Para. 0042-0044) depending on at least one hardness and/or strength property of a substrate (Para. 0042-0044, hard screw case is for harder material, soft screw case is for softer material) in which a screwdriving operation is to be carried out (Para. 0042-0044); and
selecting an operation mode (Para. 0042-0044) from an operation mode group comprising a first operation mode (Para. 0042-0044, first operating mode) and a second operation mode (Para. 0042-0044, second operating mode), based at least in part on the application class (Para. 0042-0044, first operating mode is for soft screw case and second operating mode is for hard screw case),
wherein the first mode of operation has a first torque level (Para. 0046-0047) delivered by the hand-held power tool per application class (Para. 0046-0047) and the second mode of operation has a second maximum torque level (Para. 0046-0047, a different torque level is needed for the soft screw case and the hard screw case) per application class (Para. 0046-0047), the second maximum torque level per application class different (Para. 0046-0047, a different torque level is needed for the soft screw case and the hard screw case) from the first torque level delivered by the hand-held power tool per application class (Para. 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 2, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the application class is selected from a group of application classes comprising a “hard screwdriving” (Para. 0042-0044, hard screw case) and a “soft screwdriving” (Para. 0042-0044, soft screw case).
Regarding claim 3, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein, per application class, a maximum torque level of the respective first maximum torque level is higher than a corresponding maximum torque level of the second maximum torque level (Para. 0046-0047, a higher toque is needed for the hard screw case than for the soft screw case).
Regarding claim 4, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein for each application class the respective second maximum torque level compared to the corresponding first maximum torque level is characterized by a lower rotational speed of the electric motor (Para. 0047, the speed of the motor is reduced in the second mode for the hard screw case) and/or a lower impact duration.
Regarding claim 5, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein selecting the operation mode comprises: selecting the first operation mode when the application class soft screwdriving is present (Para. 0042-0044, first operating mode is for the soft screw case), and selecting the second operation mode when the application class hard screwdriving is present (Para. 0042-0044, second operating mode is for the hard screw case).
Regarding claim 6, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: selecting the application class is performed by a user (Para. 0042-0044), via an application software and/or a user interface on the hand-held power tool (Para. 0044, section of the operating mode takes place by means of a selection switch).
Regarding claim 7, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: selecting the operation mode is performed by a user (Para. 0042-0044), optionally via an application software and/or a user interface on the hand-held power tool (Para. 0044, section of the operating mode takes place by means of a selection switch).
Regarding claim 8, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: selecting the operation mode is at least partially automatic (Para. 0042-0044, 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 9, Beckert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: selecting the application class is at least partially automatic (Para. 0042-0044, 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 19, Beckert discloses a hand-held power tool (Fig. 1, item 1) comprising:
an electric motor (Fig. 1, item 3);
a measured value transducer of an operating variable of the electric motor; and
a control unit (Fig. 1, item 8) configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Para. 0040-0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckert in view of Kawai (US 2021/0060755).
Regarding claim 10, Beckert is silent about the method according to claim 9, wherein selecting the application comprises: ascertaining a signal of an operating variable of the electric motor; and selecting the application class based at least in part on the signal of the operating variable.
However, Kawai teaches a method (Kawai, Para. 0139-0142) of operating a hand-held power tool (Kawai, Fig. 1, item 1) comprising selecting an application class (Kawai, Para. 0139-0142, mode is selected based on the signal sent by the operation device) by ascertaining a signal of an operating variable (Kawai, Para. 0139-0142, operating variable is the operation of the operation device by the user) (Kawai, Para. 0126) of the electric motor (Kawai, Para. 0139-0142); and selecting the application class based at least in part on the signal of the operating variable (Kawai, Para. 0139-0142).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Beckert and Kawai to modify the method of Beckert to include selecting the application class based on a signal, as taught by Kawai. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to reduce breakage of the controller and components around the controller in the tool (Kawai, Para. 0005).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckert in view of Gaul (US 2020/0361064).
Regarding claim 20, Beckert does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the hand-held power tool is a rotary impact wrench.
However, Gaul teaches a hand-held power tool (Gaul, Fig. 1, item 1) being a rotary impact wrench (Gaul, Para. 0017).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Beckert and Gaul to modify the hand-held power tool of Beckert to be a rotary impact wrench, as taught by Gaul. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to efficiently and effectively insert fasteners into a workpiece with the desired level of torque.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731