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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 07/07/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-5 and 11-14 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-26 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 6-8, 15, 17, 21-23, and 25-26 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “causes the drive mechanism to operate sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed” renders claim 6 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed nor a fourth speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Claims 7 and 21 are dependent of claim 6 and include all the same limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “accelerate from the third speed to the fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position” renders claim 8 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose accelerating from the third speed to the fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “causes the drive mechanism to operate sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed” renders claim 15 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed nor a fourth speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “accelerate from the third speed to the fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position” renders claim 17 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose accelerating from the third speed to the fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “causes the drive mechanism to operate sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed” renders claim 20 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed nor a fourth speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “acceleration from the third speed to the fourth speed is non-linear” renders claim 22 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 9 paragraph 29 of the Specification, the drive mechanism is configured to accelerate at a non-linear rate between the first speed and second speed. Specification as originally filed does not disclose accelerating from the third speed to the fourth speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “the second speed is equal to the third speed” renders claim 23 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase “acceleration from the third speed to the fourth speed is non-linear” renders claim 25 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 9 paragraph 29 of the Specification, the drive mechanism is configured to accelerate at a non-linear rate between the first speed and second speed. Specification as originally filed does not disclose accelerating from the third speed to the fourth speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “the second speed is equal to the third speed” renders claim 26 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 7 paragraph 25 of the Specification, the impact tool is disclosed to turn at a first predetermined speed when in the partially actuated position, and turned at a second predetermined speed when in the fully actuated position. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
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, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by reference Still et al. (10,373,715).
Regarding claim 1, Still et al. disclose a power tool (18) comprising:
a housing (20) configured to house a drive mechanism (22); and
a trigger system (26, 28, 34, 38) including:
a trigger assembly (26, 28) having at least one magnet (28),
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated so that the at least one magnet (28) slides along a sliding axis, and
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated between a non-actuated position (Figure 3A), an intermediate actuated position, and a fully actuated position (Figure 3B);
a sensor assembly (34, 38) disposed in the housing (20) proximate to the trigger assembly (26, 28),
wherein the sensor assembly (34, 38) including a first digital non-contact sensor (34) and a second digital non-contact sensor (38), wherein the first (34) and second (38) digital non-contact sensors having axes of sensitivity generally orthogonal to the sliding axis of the at least one magnet (28), and
wherein actuating the trigger assembly (26, 28) from the non-actuated position (Figure 3A) toward the fully actuated position (Figure 3B) causes the magnet (28) to sequentially activate the first digital non-contact sensor (34) at the intermediate actuated position and activate the second digital non-contact sensor (38) at the fully actuated position; and
a controller (40) communicately coupled with the sensor assembly (34, 38),
wherein the controller (40) is configured to:
initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the first digital non-contact sensor (34) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the intermediate actuated position; and
initiate execution of a second predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the second digital non-contact sensor (38) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the fully actuated position.
(Figure 2, 3A, 3B and Column 3 lines 21-23, 65-67, Column 4 lines 27-41, Column 5 lines 8-11, 26-29, Column 8 lines 16-25)
Regarding claim 9, Still et al. disclose the first and second digital non-contact sensors (34, 38) comprise switch Hall effect sensors. (Column 4 lines 46-49)
Regarding claim 10, Still et al. disclose a trigger system (26, 28, 34, 38) including:
a trigger assembly (26, 28) having at least one magnet (28),
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated so that the at least one magnet (28) slides along a sliding axis; and
a first digital non-contact sensor (34) and a second digital non-contact sensor (38) disposed in a housing (20) proximate to the trigger assembly (26, 28),
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated between a non-actuated position (Figure 3A), an intermediate actuated position, and a fully actuated position (Figure 3B) so that actuating the trigger assembly (26, 28) from the non-actuated position (Figure 3A) toward the fully actuated position (Figure 3B) causes the magnet (28) to sequentially activate the first digital non-contact sensor (34) at the intermediate actuated position and activate the the second digital non-contact sensor (38) when the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the fully actuated position (Figure 3B); and
a controller (40) communication with coupled with the first digital non-contact sensor (34) and the second digital non-contact sensor (38),
wherein the controller (40) is configured to:
initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the first digital non-contact sensor (34) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the intermediate actuated position; and
initiate execution of a second predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the second digital non-contact sensor (38) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the fully actuated position.
(Figure 3A, 3B and Column 3 lines 65-67, Column 4 lines 27-41, Column 5 lines 8-11, 26-29, Column 8 lines 16-25)
Regarding claim 18, Still et al. disclose the first and second digital non-contact sensors (34, 38) comprise switch Hall effect sensors. (Column 4 lines 46-49)
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.
Claims 6-8, 15-17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Still et al. (10,373,715) as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of reference Forster et al. (8,988,015).
Regarding claim 6, Still et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose operating sequentially at at least a first speed and a second speed, and operating sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed.
Forster et al. disclose a power tool comprising a trigger assembly (24), wherein trigger assembly (24) profile is broken down into a plurality of control zones, wherein each zone differs from the other zones, and wherein the further the trigger assembly (24) is compressed the higher the speed. (Figure 3 and Column 7 lines 1-10)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the trigger assembly of Still et al. by incorporating the plurality of control zones as taught by Forster et al., since column 5 lines 5-14 of Forster et al. states such a modification would allow more control at lower speeds.
When modifying Still et al. in view of Forster et al., the first predetermined fastening profile is interpreted to operate sequentially at at least a first and as second speed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position, and the second predetermined fastening profile is interpreted to operate sequentially at at least a third and speed and a fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position.
Regarding claim 7, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the first predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism (Still et al. – 22) to accelerate from the first speed to the second seed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position. (Forster et al. – Figure 3 and Column
7 lines 4-10)
Regarding claim 8, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the first predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism (Still et al. – 22) to accelerate from the third speed to the fourth seed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position. (Forster et al. – Figure 3 and Column
7 lines 4-10)
Regarding claim 15, Still et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose operating sequentially at at least a first speed and a second speed, and operating sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed.
Forster et al. disclose a power tool comprising a trigger assembly (24), wherein trigger assembly (24) profile is broken down into a plurality of control zones, wherein each zone differs from the other zones, and wherein the further the trigger assembly (24) is compressed the higher the speed. (Figure 3 and Column 7 lines 1-10)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the trigger assembly of Still et al. by incorporating the plurality of control zones as taught by Forster et al., since column 5 lines 5-14 of Forster et al. states such a modification would allow more control at lower speeds.
When modifying Still et al. in view of Forster et al., the first predetermined fastening profile is interpreted to operate sequentially at at least a first and as second speed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position, and the second predetermined fastening profile is interpreted to operate sequentially at at least a third and speed and a fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position.
Regarding claim 16, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the first predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism (Still et al. – 22) to accelerate from the first speed to the second seed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position. (Forster et al. – Figure 3 and Column
7 lines 4-10)
Regarding claim 17, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the first predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism (Still et al. – 22) to accelerate from the third speed to the fourth seed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position. (Forster et al. – Figure 3 and Column
7 lines 4-10)
Regarding claim 21, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the acceleration from the first speed to the second speed is non-linear. (Forster et al. – Column 7 lines 14-17)
Regarding claim 22, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the acceleration from the third speed to the fourth speed is non-linear. (Forster et al. – Column 7 lines 14-17)
Regarding claim 23, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the second speed is equal to the third speed. (Forster et al. – Figure 3)
Regarding claim 24, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the acceleration from the first speed to the second speed is non-linear. (Forster et al. – Column 7 lines 14-17)
[AltContent: textbox (Fourth Speed)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Speed)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Second Speed / Third Speed)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
519
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the acceleration from the third speed to the fourth speed is non-linear. (Forster et al. – Column 7 lines 14-17)
Regarding claim 26, Still et al. modified by Forster et al. disclose the second speed is equal to the third speed. (Forster et al. – Figure 3)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Jacque et al. (2023/0013688) in view of reference Still et al. (10,373,715).
Regarding claim 19, Jacque et al. disclose an impact tool (100) comprising:
a housing (102) having:
a front end;
a rear end; and
a pistol grip (106),
wherein the front end and the rear end define an axis extending between the front end and the rear end, and
wherein the housing (102) is configured to house a drive mechanism (108),
a hammer (112) having at least one hammer jaw (126),
wherein the hammer (112) is configured to be driven by the drive mechanism (108) about the axis,
an anvil (114) disposed inside the housing (102),
wherein the anvil (114) defines at least one anvil jaw (134) configured to periodically engage with the at least one hammer jaw (126) to rotate the anvil (114) about the axis;
a multiple position trigger assembly (118); and
a controller (pg 2 para 29) configured to control the drive mechanism (108).
(Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 28, 29, 32)
However, Jacque et al. do not disclose a trigger assembly comprising: a magnet; a first digital non-contact sensor; and a second digital non-contact sensor, wherein the controller is configured to select a first fastening profile when the trigger assembly is in an intermediate actuated position and a second fastening profile when the trigger assembly is in a fully actuated position.
Still et al. disclose a power tool (18) comprising:
a housing (20) configured to house a drive mechanism (22);
a trigger assembly (26, 28) having at least one magnet (28),
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated so that the at least one magnet (28) slides along a sliding axis; and
a sensor assembly (34, 38) disposed in the housing (20) proximate to the trigger assembly (26, 28),
wherein the sensor assembly (34, 38) including a first digital non-contact sensor (34) and a second digital non-contact sensor (38),
wherein the first (34) and second (38) digital non-contact sensors have a sensing face,
wherein the sensing face of the first (34) and second (38) digital non-contact sensors is generally parallel to the sliding axis of the at least one magnet (28),
wherein the trigger assembly (26, 28) is configured to be actuated between a non-actuated position (Figure 3A), an intermediate actuated position, and a fully actuated position (Figure 3B) so that actuating the trigger assembly (26, 28) from the non-actuated position (Figure 3A) toward the fully actuated position (Figure 3B) causes the magnet (28) to sequentially activate the first digital non-contact sensor (34) at the intermediate actuated position and activate the the second digital non-contact sensor (38) when the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the fully actuated position (Figure 3B); and
a controller (40) in communication with the sensor assembly (34, 38),
wherein the controller (40) is configured to:
initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the first digital non-contact sensor (34) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the intermediate actuated position; and
initiate execution of a second predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet (28) activating the second digital non-contact sensor (38) while the trigger assembly (26, 28) is in the fully actuated position.
(Figure 3A, 3B and Column 3 lines 65-67, Column 4 lines 27-41, Column 5 lines 8-11, 26-29, Column 8 lines 16-25)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the impact tool of Jacque et al. by incorporating the trigger assembly as taught by Still et al., since column 2 lines 22-27 of Still et al. states such a modification would help reduce the potential for malfunctioning of the tool.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Jacque et al. (2023/0013688) in view of reference Still et al. (10,373,715) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of reference Forster et al. (8,988,015).
Regarding claim 20, Jacque et al. modified by Still et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above, but do not disclose operating sequentially at at least a first speed and a second speed, and operating sequentially at at least a third speed and a fourth speed.
Forster et al. disclose a power tool comprising a trigger assembly (24), wherein trigger assembly (24) profile is broken down into a plurality of control zones, wherein each zone differs from the other zones, and wherein the further the trigger assembly (24) is compressed the higher the speed. (Figure 3 and Column 7 lines 1-10)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the controller of Jacque et al. by incorporating the plurality of control zones as taught by Forster et al., since column 5 lines 5-14 of Forster et al. states such a modification would allow more control at lower speeds.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 07/07/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-5 and 11-14 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-26 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The second fastening profile (corresponding to the fully actuated position/second trigger point) causes the drive mechanism to operate sequentially at a third speed (the speed at the start of acceleration ramp 2, i.e., the first predetermined speed) and a fourth speed (the speed at the end of acceleration ramp 2, i.e., the second predetermined speed), precisely the sequential two-speed operation recited for the second predetermined fastening profile. The specification further states that "the controller 150 may actuate the power tool assembly 100 to accelerate (acceleration ramp 2) from the first predetermined speed to the second predetermined speed." Application, [Par. 0028].
On page 9 paragraph 28 of the Specification, the controller is disclosed to
“actuate the power tool assembly 100 to accelerate (acceleration ramp 1) from rest to the first predetermined speed.”
…
“As the second trigger point is reached, the controller 150 may actuate the power tool assembly 100 to accelerate (acceleration ramp 2) from the first predetermined speed to the second predetermined speed.
(emphasis added)
The Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third predetermined speed nor a third speed, and do not disclose a fourth predetermined speed nor a fourth speed. Figure 5B, in view of paragraph 28 of the Specification, shows the acceleration ramp 1 going from rest to the first predetermined speed, and shows the acceleration ramp 2 going from the first predetermined speed to the second predetermined speed.
Since the Specification as originally filed does not disclose a third speed nor a fourth speed, it is unclear how the person of ordinary skill in the art would inherently know that the disclosed “rest” speed should be interpreted as the first speed, the disclosed first predetermined speed should be interpreted as the second and third speeds, and the disclosed second predetermined speed should be interpreted as the fourth speed.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) with reference Still et al. (10,373,715), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Because no individual sensor activation in Still is sufficient, by itself, to cause the controller to initiate execution of a complete predetermined fastening profile, Still fails to disclose “initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet activating the first digital non-contact sensor,” as recited in amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., activating only one sensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 discloses the process of “initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet activating the first digital non-contact sensor”. Claim 1 does not disclose an individual sensor causes activation by itself.
Applicant states:
Independently, Still’s sensors are not “digital non-contact sensors” as recited in amended Claim 1.
In column 4 lines 62-65, Still et al. discloses the output signals “generated by the plurality of sensors 32, 34, 36, 38 may be a digital or analog representation of electric current flow, voltage potential, resistance, or the like” (emphasis added). In Figures 3A and 3B, Still et al. shows the magnet (28) magnetically interacting with the plurality of sensors (32, 34, 36, 38) without physically contacting said sensors. Therefore, Still et al. do disclose using digital non-contact sensors.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.103 with reference Still et al. (10,373,715) modified by reference Forster et al. (8,988,015), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 further specify that this speed transition occurs while the trigger assembly remains at a single, fixed trigger position.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., trigger assembly remaining at a single, fixed trigger position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 7 and 16 disclose the “first predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism to accelerate from the first speed to the second speed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position”. Claims 8 and 17 disclose the “second predetermined fastening profile causes the drive mechanism to accelerate from the third speed to the fourth speed while the trigger assembly is in the fully actuated position”. None of claims 7, 8, 16, nor 17 disclose the trigger assembly being stationary or being fixed in the intermediate actuated position or the fully actuated position while the acceleration is being conducted. The claims do not disclose the drive mechanism processes through multiple discrete speeds without any further change in trigger position.
Applicant states:
Forster's non-linearity describes the shape of the relationship between trigger position and duty cycle, i.e., for a given change in trigger position within a zone, the resulting change in duty cycle follows a non-linear (e.g., second-order) curve rather than a straight line. See Forster at FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lns. 52-67. In every instance, however, Forster's duty cycle is still a direct function of trigger position: absent a change in trigger position, Forster's duty cycle does not change at all, regardless of whether the zone's underlying relationship is linear or non-linear.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-linear speed change while trigger assembly is in fixed trigger position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 21 and 24 disclose the “acceleration from the first speed to the second speed is non-linear”. Claims 22 and 25 disclose the “acceleration from the third speed to the fourth speed is non-linear”. None of claims 21, 22, 24, nor 25 disclose the acceleration to be non-linear while the trigger assembly is being stationary or being fixed in the intermediate actuated position or the fully actuated position.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.103 with reference Jacque et al. (2023/0013688) modified by reference Still et al. (10,373,715), finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The supplemental reference cited do not cure this defect in the teaching of Jacque. Specifically, Still’s controller does not act in response to activation of any single sensor, rather, it requires the combination of base digital integers from multiple sensors into a single concatenated digital integer before it varies its operating parameter at all.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., responding to the activation of only a single sensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 19 discloses the process of “initiate execution of a first predetermined fastening profile in response to the at least one magnet activating the first digital non-contact sensor”. Claim 19 does not disclose the controller responds to the activation of only a single sensor.
Applicant states:
As discussed above with respect to claim 6, the claim includes at least a single fastening profile, triggered by activation of a single sensor at a single trigger position, that causes sequential progression through multiple discrete speeds, without any further change in trigger position.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., activation of only a single sensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sequential progression without any further change in trigger position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 20 discloses the process of “operate sequentially at at least a first speed and a second speed while the trigger assembly is in the intermediate actuated position”. Claim 20 does not disclose conducting the sequential progression without any further change in trigger position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 September 3, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights