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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“pinion” (claim 1, line 18) should be changed to --a pinion--;
“sleeves over” (claim 3, line 3) should be changed to --that sleeves over--;
“and in driving fit therewith” (claim 3, lines 3-4) should be changed to --and is in driving fit therewith--;
“a pinion” (claim 3, line 5) should be changed to --the pinion--;
“disposed” (claim 4, line 6) should be changed to --is disposed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the planetary roller lead screw nut has a front end face disposed proximate to the clamping jaw and a rear end face disposed away from the clamping gear” (lines 2-3). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what is a “clamping gear” as this term is not used in the specification. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the following limitations:
“a stroke protection circuit configured to detect a stroke position of the planetary roller lead screw shaft and output a position feedback signal to the main controller circuit”;
“an overcurrent protection circuit configured to interrupt power supply to the DC motor when the operating current exceeds a predetermined threshold”;
“a limit circuit configured to detect whether the planetary roller lead screw shaft reaches a preset limit position and output a limit signal to the main controller circuit”;
“and a stall protection circuit configured to detect a stall condition of the DC motor and output a stall signal to the main controller circuit”;
“and wherein the main controller circuit is configured to brake and reverse the DC motor in response to each signal elected from the current feedback signal, the position feedback signal, the limit signal, and the stall signal.”
These amended limitations are new matter because the specification does not describe the claimed functions of these “circuits” (even though there may be a mention of the name of the “circuit” in the specification (see Spec. p. 4, lines 14-16)). Examiner notes that the claimed functions associated with each of these “circuits” were added in the most recent Amendment. Examiner also notes that without these recited functions, some of these “circuits” would have an indefiniteness issue because it would be unclear what was being claimed (e.g., what is a “stall protection circuit” and a “stroke protection circuit” (these are not terms of art) and how do these work?). Nevertheless, it is improper to add new matter in order to explain away the potential indefiniteness issues.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Ikuta in view of Yabuguchi
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190314888 A1 (“Ikuta”) in view of US 20200139424 A1 (“Yabuguchi”).
Ikuta pertains to a riveting tool (Abstr.; Figs. 3-17). Yabuguchi pertains to a riveting tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Ikuta discloses a riveting tool for a high-strength ring groove rivet (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, showing a ring groove rivet, Figs. 3-17, riveting tool), comprising
a gun head assembly, a driving mechanism, a transmission mechanism, a power source, and a control module which are arranged in a riveting tool shell (Figs. 3-17, gun head assembly 6, driving mechanism 20, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, transmission mechanism 40, power source 19, control module 28 in tool shell 10),
wherein
the gun head assembly comprises a clamping jaw and an anvil for squeezed riveting of a ring groove rivet (Figs. 3-17, clamping jaw 671 or 65A and anvil 61 are capable of the recited function);
the power source is a detachable and rechargeable battery (Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0078, removable, rechargeable battery 19);
the driving mechanism comprises a DC motor, a reduction gearbox driven by the DC motor, and a driving shaft (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0083-0085, DC motor 20, reduction gearbox 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, driving shaft 36),
wherein:
a gearbox shaft extends axially through the DC motor and the reduction gearbox (Fig. 3, shaft 21 extends axially through the motor 20 and gearbox),
the transmission mechanism is a planetary roller lead screw transmission mechanism comprising a planetary roller lead screw shaft arranged in parallel with the driving shaft (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0085-0095, planetary roller lead screw shaft 46 is parallel to driving shaft 36),
the planetary roller lead screw shaft is in coaxial driving connection with the clamping jaw of the gun head assembly, the planetary roller lead screw shaft has a large gear affixed thereto, and the driver shaft has [a] pinion affixed thereto, and the pinion engages the large gear so that the planetary roller lead screw shaft is in driving connection with the driving shaft (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0085-0095, planetary roller lead screw shaft 46 is in coaxial driving connection with clamping jaw 671 or 65A, and in driving connection with driving shaft 36 via threads on screw shaft 46, “large gear” 411 affixed to screw shaft 46, and pinion 38 affixed on drive shaft 36).
Ikuta does not explicitly disclose the gearbox shaft is aligned with the driving shaft. However, the Ikuta/Yabuguchi combination makes obvious this claim.
Yabuguchi discloses:
a gearbox shaft extends axially through the DC motor and the reduction gearbox, and the gearbox shaft is aligned with the driving shaft (Figs. 2-5, gearbox shaft 25 extends through DC motor 2 and reduction gearbox 31, which is axially aligned with driving shaft 33),
the transmission mechanism is a planetary roller lead screw transmission mechanism comprising a planetary roller lead screw shaft arranged in parallel with the driving shaft (Figs. 2-5, planetary roller lead screw shaft 46 is parallel to driving shaft 33),
the planetary roller lead screw shaft is in coaxial driving connection with the clamping jaw of the gun head assembly, the planetary roller lead screw shaft has a large gear affixed thereto, and the driver shaft has pinion affixed thereto, and the pinion engages the large gear so that the planetary roller lead screw shaft is in driving connection with the driving shaft (Figs. 2-5, planetary roller lead screw shaft 46 is in coaxial driving connection with clamping jaw 651 or 63, and in driving connection with driving shaft 33 via threads on screw shaft 46, “large gear” 411 affixed to screw shaft 46, and pinion 35 affixed on drive shaft 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Yabuguchi with Ikuta by modifying the arrangement of the motor and gearbox of Ikuta to have the parallel shaft design as taught by Yabuguchi. For example, this would move the motor and gearbox to just below the screw shaft 46 of Ikuta, where the driving shaft 36 would be connected axially and directly to the gearbox (thereby dispensing with intermediate gear shaft 34 and the housing portion 113), with any necessary size and/or gearing changes in order to fit the new arrangement while operating at the same speed (e.g., a larger “large gear” 411 and pinion 38 so that driving shaft 36 could be moved lower to make space for the motor 20 and gearbox)). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a design choice of where to place the motor and gearbox relative to the screw shaft 46, and further, the modification would be less complex and cheaper than the Ikuta design because it dispenses with the need for intermediate gear shaft 34 (also dispenses with the need for bevel gear 37 of the driving shaft 36 and the additional housing portion 113). Examiner notes that both references include the same inventor (Ikuta) and have the same assignee.
Regarding claim 3, the Ikuta/Yabuguchi combination makes obvious the riveting tool for a high-strength ring groove rivet of claim 1 as applied above. Ikuta further discloses:
wherein the transmission mechanism further comprises a planetary roller lead screw nut [that] sleeves over the planetary roller lead screw shaft and [is] in driving fit therewith, and the large gear is sleeved on an outer periphery of the planetary roller lead screw nut (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0085-0095, planetary roller lead screw nut 41 is sleeved over with mating threads to planetary roller lead screw shaft 46, large gear 411 is sleeved on the outer periphery of planetary roller lead screw nut 41);
a diameter of [the] pinion sleeved on the driving shaft of the driving mechanism is smaller than that of [the] large gear, and the pinion sleeved on the driving shaft is in driving connection with the large gear sleeved on the planetary roller lead screw nut (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0085-0095, pinion 38 sleeved on shaft 36 is smaller than and in driving connection with the large gear 411).
Regarding claim 4, the Ikuta/Yabuguchi combination makes obvious the riveting tool for a high-strength ring groove rivet of claim 3 as applied above. Ikuta further discloses:
wherein the planetary roller lead screw nut has a front end face disposed proximate to the clamping jaw and a rear end face disposed away from the clamping gear (Figs. 3-7, planetary roller lead screw nut 41 has a front face proximate to clamping jaw 671 or 65A and a rear face disposed away from clamping jaw 671 or 65A),
a planar thrust roller bearing abuts the front end face of the planetary roller lead screw nut, a needle roller thrust bearing abuts the rear end face, and a pair of needle roller bearings [is] disposed on the outer periphery of the planetary roller lead screw nut so that the large gear is disposed between the pair of needle roller bearings (Figs. 3-17; ¶¶ 0088-0090, planar thrust roller bearing 415 and needle roller thrust bearing 416 arranged on front and rear end faces of planetary roller lead screw nut 41 respectively, needle roller bearings 412, 413 are arranged relative to planetary roller lead screw nut 41 as recited).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims – The objections to claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 6 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations of claim 6 is belied by the fact that these limitations include new matter (see § 112(a) rejection above).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to riveting tools having a similar gear shaft, gearbox, and motor arrangement claimed by Applicant.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights