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 statements (IDS) submitted on August 16, 2023, September 19, 2024 and June 3, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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: “a transmission mechanism configured to transmit torque” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the transmission mechanism” as being, “a plurality of gears” (see paragraph 37). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a transmission mechanism”, is being interpreted as a plurality of gears and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a torque detection unit configured to detect the torque” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the torque detection” as being, “a current sensor” (see paragraph 91). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a torque detection unit”, is being interpreted as a current sensor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a clutch mechanism configured to be switchable” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the clutch mechanism” as being, “a first rotating part, a second rotating part and at least one coupling portion” (see paragraph 43). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a clutch mechanism”, is being interpreted as including a first rotating part, a second rotating part and at least one coupling portion 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 § 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puzio et al. (2013/0192860).
In reference to claim 1, Puzio et al. disclose an electric tool (1180, Figure 11) comprising:
a holder (1196) configured to hold a tip tool (i.e. screwdriver bit, paragraph 60) thereon;
a motor (1186);
a transmission mechanism (1192, including a plurality of gears, see paragraph 61, which meets the limitation of the transmission mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5a above) configured to transmit torque of the motor to the holder;
a torque detection unit (i.e. formed as current sensor, see paragraph 66, which meets the limitation of the torque detection unit, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5b above) configured to detect the torque transmitted from the motor to the holder;
a clutch mechanism (1100, see paragraph 61, which meets the limitation of the clutch mechanism, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5c above) configured to be switchable from a transmitting state (Figure 13) where the torque of the motor is transmitted to the holder (paragraph 62), to an interrupted state (Figure 14) where no torque of the motor is transmitted to the holder, and vice versa (paragraph 62); and
a controller (1188) configured to, when a predetermined condition (i.e. threshold torque value) about the torque detected by the torque detection unit is satisfied, switch the clutch mechanism from the transmitting state to the interrupted state (paragraph 69).
In reference to claim 2, Puzio et al. disclose that the predetermined condition includes a condition that the torque detected by the torque detection unit be greater than a threshold value (paragraph 69).
In reference to claim 3, Puzio et al. further disclose that the torque detection unit includes:
a current measuring unit (i.e. current sensor) configured to measure a torque current flowing through the motor (paragraph 66), and
a calculator (formed as the automated circuit [see paragraph 20] or as the microprocessor/controller 142) configured to calculate, based on the torque current measured by the current measuring unit, the torque transmitted from the motor to the holder (see paragraph 20 for disclosing that, “an automated circuit for determining when to move the actuator based on one or more input conditions (e.g., proximity to workpiece, output torque, current delivered to motor, etc.)” and/or paragraph 51 for disclosing that, “The control circuit 142 may also receive an input from a torque sensing circuit 146 that generates a signal that corresponds to the amount of output torque on the tool.”).
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 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzio et al. (2013/0192860) or as being unpatentable over Puzio et al. (2013/0192860) in view of Aoki (2012/0261150).
In reference to claim 4, Puzio et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack
the controller is configured to, while the clutch mechanism is in the interrupted state and the motor is running, suspend performing control of switching the clutch mechanism from the interrupted state to the transmitting state.
The examiner notes that configuring a controller such that it suspends the switching of the clutch mechanism, is a design matter that could be properly addressed by a person skilled in the art depending on the particular needs of the user. For example, by suspending the switching of the clutch mechanism, one could prevent the device from being excessively used.
In addition, Aoki teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a controller (157) that is configured to, while a clutch (134) mechanism is in an interrupted state and the motor is running, suspend performing control of switching the clutch mechanism from the interrupted state to the transmitting state (depending on the “predetermined torque”, paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the controller, of Puzio et al., with the known technique of providing the controller that suspends the switching of the clutch mechanism, as taught by Aoki, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents the tool body from being swung be excessive reaction torque (paragraph 57).
Claim 5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzio et al. (2013/0192860) in view of Hagan et al. (7452304) and Xu (2013/0168119) or Binder et al. (2012/0103643).
In reference to claim 5, Puzio et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack specifically disclosing that;
the transmission mechanism is configured to reduce a rotational velocity of the motor, and
the clutch mechanism is interposed between the motor and the transmission mechanism.
However, Hagan et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a transmission mechanism that includes a plurality of planetary transmission stages (see Abstract) that reduces a rotational velocity of a motor (see Column 2, Lines 22-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the transmission mechanism, of Puzio et al., with the known technique of providing the transmission mechanism that reduces a rotational velocity of a motor, as taught by Hagan et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides a transmission having a relatively large range in its speed reducing capacity (Column 1, Lines 65-67).
In addition, Xu teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a clutch mechanism (3) that is interposed between a motor (2) and a transmission mechanism (at 4 or at 41/42 and see paragraph 11).
Furthermore, Binder et al. also teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a clutch mechanism (20) that is interposed between a motor (4) and a transmission mechanism (17, Figure 1 and see paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the clutch mechanism, of Puzio et al., with the known technique of providing the clutch mechanism that is interposed between a motor and a transmission mechanism, as taught by Xu or Binder et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows the device to operate more stably (paragraph 11 of Xu) or that makes it possible to interrupt the transmission of torque during normal operation (paragraph 14 of Binder et al.).
Claims 6-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzio et al. (2013/0192860) in view of Puzio et al. (2013/0192860, i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3).
In reference to claim 6, Puzio et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
the clutch mechanism includes:
a first rotating part configured to rotate as the motor runs; a second rotating part to which the holder is coupled either directly or indirectly and at least one coupling portion;
the transmitting state is a state where the first rotating part and the second rotating part are coupled to each other via the at least one coupling portion so that torque of the first rotating part is transmitted to the second rotating part, and
the interrupted state is a state where the first rotating part and the second rotating part are decoupled from each other so that no torque of the first rotating part is transmitted to the second rotating part.
However, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a clutch mechanism (Figures 2 and 3) that includes:
a first rotating part (111) configured to rotate as the motor runs; a second rotating part (104) to which the holder is coupled either directly or indirectly and at least one coupling portion (114 and/or 120);
the transmitting state is a state where the first rotating part and the second rotating part are coupled to each other via the at least one coupling portion so that torque of the first rotating part is transmitted to the second rotating part (paragraphs 46-50), and
the interrupted state is a state where the first rotating part and the second rotating part are decoupled from each other so that no torque of the first rotating part is transmitted to the second rotating part (paragraphs 46-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the clutch mechanism, of Puzio et al., with the known technique of providing the clutch mechanism including the first rotating part, the second rotating part and the coupling portion, as taught by Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3), and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively changes between various modes (paragraph 46).
In reference to claim 7, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) disclose that the at least one coupling portion includes: an electromagnet (130) having a magnetic pole (paragraph 48); and a permanent magnet (124) facing the magnetic pole (paragraph 48),the magnetic pole is held by the first rotating part and the permanent magnet is held by the second rotating part (Figure 3), and the controller is configured to switch the clutch mechanism from the transmitting state to the interrupted state, or vice versa, by changing an energization state of the electromagnet (paragraph 48).
In reference to claim 8, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) disclose that the controller is configured to switch the clutch mechanism from the transmitting state to the interrupted state by generating electromagnetic repulsive force between the magnetic pole and the permanent magnet (paragraph 48).
In reference to claim 9, Puzio et al. disclose that the clutch mechanism is configured to turn into the interrupted state when the electromagnet is energized with a current, of which magnitude is equal to or greater than predetermined magnitude and turn into the transmitting state when the electromagnet is either not energized or energized with a current, of which magnitude is less than the predetermined magnitude (paragraph 52) , depending on the torque setting (paragraph 51).
In reference to claim 11, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) disclose that the clutch mechanism further includes: an input shaft (102) configured to transmit the torque of the motor to the first rotating part; and an output shaft (104) arranged coaxially with the input shaft and configured to transmit rotational force of the second rotating part to the holder (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 12, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) disclose that the clutch mechanism includes a plurality of the coupling portions (upper 115 and lower 115), and the plurality of the coupling portions are arranged to surround at least one of the input shaft or the output shaft (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 13, Puzio et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) disclose that the clutch mechanism has a fitting structure (at 119 or at 111) configured to couple, by fitting, the first rotating part and the second rotating part to each other in the transmitting state (Figures 2 and 3).
Claim 10, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzio et al. (2013/0192860) in view of Puzio et al. (2013/0192860, i.e. the embodiment in Figures 2-3) and Wang (CN 206451560, cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 10, Puzio et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
the at least one coupling portion includes an elastic member configured to store elastic energy while the electromagnet is energized, and
the clutch mechanism is caused to switch from one state selected from the transmitting state and the interrupted state to the other state selected from the transmitting state and the interrupted state by the elastic energy of the elastic member.
However, Wang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an electromagnet (1, Figure 1) with at least one coupling portion includes an elastic member (80) configured to store elastic energy while the electromagnet is energized, and the clutch mechanism (when combined with Puzio et al.) would be caused to switch from one state selected from the transmitting state and the interrupted state to the other state selected from the transmitting state and the interrupted state by the elastic energy of the elastic member (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the coupling portion, of Puzio et al., with the known technique of providing a coupling portion that includes the elastic member, as taught by Wang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows for automatic resetting of the device (see Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Totsu (2009/0308628) disclose a similar power tool (Figure 1) having a setting that can be made so that when the drive power for the brushless motor is interrupted, the semiconductor that comprises the bridge configuration of the inverter circuit provided in the drive control circuit of the brushless motor is operated so as to short-circuit the magnetizing windings of the brushless motor, so that the rotor is stropped; as a result, it is possible to abruptly brake the brushless motor rotor and even further enhance torque control precision in screw tightening work (paragraph 18).
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