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 amendment filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 6 and 19 are duplicates. Cancellation of one of the claims is required in response to this Office action.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Reference numeral “186” in paragraphs [0029]-[0030] is not found in any drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-11 and 18 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) Claim 7 is improperly dependent from claim 1. It is noted clam 1 is directed to the embodiment described in paragraph [0037], lines 9-10 of the specification in which the controller 190b reverses the rotational direction of the motor 16b with each actuation of the switch 210. However, claim 7 is directed to the embodiment descried in paragraph [0037], lines 11-13 of the specification in which the controller 190b is configured to detect a stall of the motor 16b, stop the motor 16b when a stall is detected, and then automatically reverse the direction of rotation of the motor 16b upon a subsequent actuation of the switch 210. These two embodiments are independent and distinct from each other.
(2) In claim 18, line 2, “the eccentric shaft” has no antecedent basis.
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, 3-7, 9-11, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0188361, hereinafter “Simpson”) in view of DE 4418102.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Simpson discloses a power tool (e.g., a hedge trimmer 10, see Fig.1) comprising:
a housing (13);
a tool element (11/12) extending from the housing (13);
an electric motor (see paragraph [0017], line 6) disposed within the housing (13) and having a motor shaft (inherent) configured to rotate about an axis;
a switch (16/17) supported by the housing (13), the switch (16/17) being actuatable to energize the electric motor (see paragraph [0017], lines 8-12);
a transmission mechanism (e.g., a gearbox, see paragraph [0011], lines 1-2) coupled to the electric motor and configured to convert a rotational input from the motor shaft into a reciprocating motion of the tool element (11/12); and
a controller (see paragraph [0006]-[0007]) configured to control operation of the electric motor,
wherein the electric motor is operable in a first mode to rotate the motor shaft about the axis in a first direction and in a second mode to rotate the motor shaft about the axis in a second direction opposite the first direction (see paragraph [0026]);
wherein the transmission mechanism is configured to reciprocate the tool element (11/12) when the electric motor is operated in the first mode and when the electric motor is operated in the second mode (see paragraph [0028), and
wherein the controller is configured to control the electric motor to alternate between the first mode and the second mode with each actuation of the switch (by first actuating the switch 16/17 so that the motor operable in a first mode, upon motor stalled in a jammed situation, releasing the switch 16/17 to cut power to the motor, and then reversing the motor rotational direction to put the motor in a second mode by re-application of power to the motor e.g., by actuating the switch 16/17, see paragraph [0030], lines 6-12) substantially as claimed except Simpson’s transmission mechanism is in the form of a gearbox (see paragraph [0011], lines 1-2) rather than an eccentric drive.
DE ‘102 shows a power tool (see Fig.1) comprising an electric motor (8) having a motor shaft (9); a transmission mechanism of the type including an eccentric drive (18,19) coupled to the electric motor (8) configured to convert a rotational input from the motor shaft (9) into a reciprocating motion of a tool element (16/17) of the power tool.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Simpson by substituting the transmission mechanism (including an eccentric drive) of DE ‘102 for that of Simpson’s for the predictable result of converting the rotational input from the motor shaft into the reciprocating motion of the tool element.
Regarding claim 4, Simpson’s power tool (10) further comprises a sensor (see paragraph [0007]) configured to detect a jam.
Regarding claim 5, Simpson’s controller is configured to stop the rotation of the motor shaft in response to the sensor detecting a jam (e.g., once a jammed situation is sensed, a user releases the switch 16/17, the controller stops the rotations of the motor).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Simpson’s power tool (10) further comprises a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (see paragraph [0012]) coupled to the housing for providing power to the electric motor except Simpson does not show the rechargeable lithium-ion battery being a “battery pack”. Official notice is taken of the fact that battery pack is well known in the hedge trimmer art as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 4,084,123 for powering a motor of the trimmer. Thus, to make Simpson’s rechargeable lithium-ion battery into a battery pack for advantage of easy removal when needed would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Simpson’s controller is configured to automatically reverse a direction of rotation of the motor shaft in response to the electric motor experiencing a stall (see paragraph [0021], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 9, Simpson’s power tool (10) is a hedge trimmer.
Regarding claim 10, Simpson’s power tool (10) further comprises a sensor (see paragraph [0007], lines 5-7) configured to monitor rotation of the motor shaft which influences the reciprocating speed of the tool element (11/12), wherein the controller is configured to determine that the electric motor is experiencing a stall based on feedback from the sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Simpsons’ power tool (10) further comprises a sensor (see paragraph [0007], lines 1-5) configured to monitor current supplied to the electric motor, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the electric motor is experiencing a stall based on feedback from the sensor.
Regarding claim 14, Simpson’s power tool (10) further comprises a sensor (see paragraphs [0007]-[0008]) in communication with the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the electric motor in response to the sensor detecting a jam.
Regarding claim 17, Simpson’s sensor includes a motor current sensor (see paragraph [0007], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Simpson’s controller includes a control circuit (see claim 4) but it fails to mention the control circuit being a printed circuit board. Official notice is taken of the fact that it is well-known in the art to have control circuit in the form of a printed circuit board (see page 7, 6th paragraph, lines 5-7 of English translation of CN 114365636 cited in the attached PTO-892). Thus, to have Simpson’s control circuit in the form of a printed circuit board would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the advantage of having the circuit well supported on a board.
3. Claims 2, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0188361, hereinafter “Simpson”) in view of DE 4418102 as applied to claims 1, 7 and 14 above, and further in view of EP 3420808.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Simpson’s power tool (10) as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except the power tool (10) is hedge trimmer rather than a handheld punch tool.
EP ‘808 teaches un-jamming procedures used in a hedge trimmer (10) may also operate with other reciprocating tools (see paragraph [0042]).
In view of the teaching of EP ‘808, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Simpson by having the reciprocating power tool formed as handheld reciprocating punch tool for performing a desired reciprocating task as one desired.
Regarding claim 15, Simpson’s power tool (10) as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except the controller is not configured to de-energize the electric motor in response to the sensor detecting a jam.
EP ’808 shows a power tool (10) equipped with a controller (306) that is configured to de-energize an electric motor (302) in response to a sensor (308) detecting a jam (see paragraph [0036], lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Simpson by having the controller configured to de-energize the electric motor in response to the sensor detecting a jam to avoid overloading the motor as taught by DE’ ‘808.
Regarding claim 16, while Simpson teaches using a sensor for detecting a jam (see paragraphs [0007]), it does not explicitly mention the sensor including includes a Hall effect sensor.
EP ‘808 teaches using a Hall effect sensor (see paragraph [0011]) for detaching a jam in a power tool (see paragraph [0029], lines 1-9).
Therefore, to use a well-known and commercially available sensor such as the Hall effect sensor of EP ‘808 for detecting a jam in Simpson’s power tool would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
4. Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0188361, hereinafter “Simpson”) in view of DE 4418102 and EP 3420808 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 201361904.
Regarding claim 13, Simpson as modified (e.g., a handheld punch tool) shows all the claimed limitations except it lacks the specifics of the punch tool.
CN ‘904 shows a handheld punch tool (see Fig.1) comprising a die holder (4) coupled to a housing (10,29);
a die (3) supported by the die holder (4), the die (3) and the die holder (4) defining a feed slot (see Fig.1 not labeled) therebetween for receiving a workpiece to be cut; and
wherein a punch (6, see Fig.2) configured to reciprocate within the die holder (4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Simpson’s handheld punch tool by providing the pouch tool with a die supported by a die holder to interact with a punch reciprocating within the die holder for performing the punching operation on a workpiece received a feed slot between the die and the die holder as taught by CN ‘904.
Regarding claim 18, in CN ‘904, the punch (6) is configured to reciprocate along an axis perpendicular to an axis of rotation of an eccentric shaft (16, see Fig.2). Simpson thus modified also possesses such characteristic.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0150194 shows a hedge trimmer (10) equipped with an anti-jamming mechanism for un-jamming blades of the hedge trimmer.
CN 114365636 shows a hedge trimmer equipped with an anti-jamming control mechanism and a battery pack (230).
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