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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The indicated allowability of claims 2-10 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Sakai. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim 2 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.
In claim 2, the limitation of “all high-side switching elements or all low-side switching elements” lacks antecedent basis. Note that there is no circuit and switching elements claimed previous to said limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott et al. (2014/0262394).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a power tool including a drive portion (22) and a motor (not shown) with a motor shaft (16) adapted to drive the drive portion that is adapted to engage a work piece, the power tool comprising: a gear assembly (52, 56) operably coupled to the motor shaft (16) and the drive portion (22; par. 26) and adapted to transfer rotational motion of the motor shaft to the drive portion; and a locking mechanism (106; Figs. 5-6) adapted to lock rotation of at least drive portion to allow for manual torque application to the work piece with the power tool (pars. 31, 37 and 39).
Regarding claim 11, Scott discloses a trigger (par. 21) that when actuated, causes power to be supplied to the motor to rotate the motor shaft.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (2020/0055159).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a power tool including a drive portion (30) and a motor (8; Fig. 2) with a motor shaft (9; Fig. 2) adapted to drive the drive portion that is adapted to engage a work piece, the power tool comprising: a gear assembly (22, 23) operably coupled to the motor shaft and the drive portion and adapted to transfer rotational motion of the motor shaft to the drive portion; and a locking mechanism (i.e. electric brake; par. 37) adapted to lock rotation of at least drive portion, thereby capable of allow manual torque application, if desired, to the work piece with the power tool (par. 46).
Regarding claims 2-5, Sakai discloses wherein the motor (5) is a brushless motor (par. 29), and the locking mechanism includes a lock button (18), wherein when the lock button is actuated, all high-side switching elements or all low-side switching elements are placed in a conducting state to prevent rotation of the motor shaft to allow for manual torque application (pars. 39, 44-50); wherein the locking mechanism includes an electrically off brake (pars. 37); wherein the electrically off brake is operably coupled to the motor shaft, wherein when power is supplied to the motor, the electrically off brake allows the motor shaft to rotate, and when power is not supplied to the motor, the electrically off brake prevents rotation of the motor shaft to allow for manual torque application (pars. 37, 39, 44, 50); wherein the electrically off brake mechanically clamps the motor shaft when power is not supplied to the motor to prevent rotation of the motor shaft (par. 46).
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (2014/0262394) in view of Banholzer (2020/0391358).
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses the power tool substantially as claimed comprising a locking mechanism (106), but fails to disclose wherein the locking mechanism includes a sprag clutch. Banholzer discloses a powered ratchet wrench comprising a sprag clutch for the purpose of lock rotation of an output spindle (150; par. 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Scott’s power tool with a locking mechanism as a sprag clutch, as taught by Banholzer in order to effectively lock rotation of the spindle.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (2014/0262394) in view of Albert (GB 1263348).
Regarding claims 12 and 16-18, Scott discloses the power tool substantially as claimed comprising a trigger, but fails to disclose wherein the trigger is a toggle trigger. Albert discloses a power tool comprising a motor and a toggle trigger (92, 84) for the purposes of switching the direction of rotation of the motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Scott’s trigger as a toggle trigger, as taught by Albert, in order to facilitate switching of the motor direction by a user.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Albert discloses wherein when the toggle trigger is actuated in the first toggle direction, the motor causes the motor shaft to rotate in a first rotational direction, and when the toggle trigger is actuated in the second toggle direction, the motor causes the motor shaft to rotate in a second rotational direction; a worm gear (8) and a spur gear (9).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (2014/0262394) in view of Albert (GB 1263348), as applied above in claim 16, and further in view of Sakai et al. (2020/0055159).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Scott discloses the invention substantially as claimed comprising a motor, but fails to disclose wherein the motor is a brushless motor. Sakai discloses a powered rotary tool comprising a brushless motor for the purposes of facilitating control of the power drive. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Scott’s invention with a brushless motor as taught by Sakai in order to facilitate control of the power drive.
Regarding claim 20, Sakai also discloses motor control electronics (pars. 2, 8-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed combination including the following features:
Regarding claim 6, wherein the locking mechanism includes a plate that is movable between locked and unlocked positions, wherein when the plate is in the locked position, the plate prevents rotation of the motor shaft to allow for manual torque application, and when the plate is in the unlocked position, the plate allows the motor shaft to rotate.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the locking mechanism includes a locking bar that is movable between locked and unlocked positions, wherein when the locking bar is in the locked position, the locking bar prevents rotation of the motor shaft to allow for manual torque application, and when the locking bar is in the unlocked position, the locking bar allows the motor shaft to rotate.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the sprag clutch is disposed between the motor shaft and the gear assembly.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 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 argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731