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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-14, Abbott teaches a power tool system comprising:
at least one power tool pack adapter [i.e., controlled device] including a power tool (fig.1A, 13; paragraph 0048, 0057); and
a server/other device [i.e., voice control device] configured to wirelessly communicate with the at least one controlled device (abstract; fig.1A, 13; paragraphs 0005, 0030, 0031, 0047, 0051, 0052, 0057, 0159) wherein:
the voice control device includes at least one first processor configured to control operation of the at least one controlled device (fig. 14; paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0056, 0057, 0159); and
the at least one first processor is configured to (i) acquire voice data, and (ii) control operation of the power tool in accordance with a command relating to the operation of the power tool and identified based on the voice data (figs. 1A, 13, 14; paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0056, 0057, 0159) (Note; blocks 1406 and/or 1408 are performed in whole or in part by another device that is in communication with the power tool adapter 106, such as the server 112 and/or the external device 110 and the power tool adapter 106 may transmit the recorded audio data to the other device, and this device may process the recorded audio data to determine the one or more voice commands present in the audio data. The other device may then transmit the determined voice commands to the power tool adapter 106, which may then continue on with block 1408 (see paragraph 0159).).
Regarding claim 7, Abbott teaches wherein: the voice control device includes a battery mounting portion (abstract; paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0026-0028, 091, 0092);
the voice control device is configured to operate using power supplied from a rechargeable battery detachably mounted to the battery mounting portion (abstract; fig.1; paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0026-0028, 0091, 0092); and
the battery is selectively mountable to multiple types of power tools (abstract; fig.1; paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0026-0028, 0072, 0091, 0092).
Regarding claim 8, Abbott teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to perform at least one of voice recognition of the voice data and identification of the command, using a machine-learned model (abstract; paragraphs 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0071, 0114-0118, 0159).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 2-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286) in view of Lee et al. (International Pub. No. WO2017099354A1).
Regarding claim 2, Abbott teaches a user device configured to wirelessly communicate with the voice control device, wherein: the user device includes (i) a voice input portion configured to receive an input of voice and convert the determined voice commands into the control actions (paragraph 0159) and (ii) at least one second processor configured to control operation of the user device, and the at least one second processor is configured to transmit, to the voice control device, the voice data generated by the voice input portion (abstract; paragraphs 0003, 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0071, 0072, 0159).
However, Abbott does not specifically teach converting the voice to the voice data. Lee teaches converting the voice to the voice data (paragraph 162). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of converting the voice to the voice data in Abbott’s invention in order to thereby output the same to a device.
Regarding claim 3, Abbott teaches wherein: the user device further includes a voice output portion configured to output voice and the at least one first processor is configured to control the output of the voice output portion (abstract; paragraphs 0003, 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0071, 0072, 0159).
Regarding claim 4, Abbott teaches wherein the user device is a wearable device (paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 12, Abbott teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to cause the voice output portion of the user device to output voice for execution of the command, before causing the power tool to perform the operation in accordance with the command (0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0085, 0087, 0088, 0159).
However, Abbott does not specifically teach voice requesting a user to confirm execution of the command. Examiner takes an official notice that voice requesting a user to confirm execution of the command is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of voice requesting a user to confirm execution of the command in Abbott’s invention in order to properly operate power tool using command from a particular user after getting confirmation for the command being allowed.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286) in view of Litovsky et al. (US Patent No. 10,477,291).
Regarding claim 5, Abbott does not specifically teach wherein the wearable device is a neck speaker wearable around the neck of a person. Litovsky teaches wherein the wearable device is a neck speaker wearable around the neck of a person (fig.3; col.1, lines 56-58). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of wherein the wearable device is a neck speaker wearable around the neck of a person in Abbott’s invention as taught by Litovsky. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide near-field sound convenient for the user.
Regarding claim 6, Abbott does not specifically teach wherein the wearable device further includes a detection portion configured to detect whether the wearable device is being worn, the at least one second processor is configured to transmit, to the voice control device, information indicating whether the wearable device is being worn, in accordance with a detection result by the detection portion. Litovsky teaches wherein the wearable device further includes a detection portion configured to detect whether the wearable device is being worn, the at least one second processor is configured to transmit, to the voice control device, information indicating whether the wearable device is being worn, in accordance with a detection result by the detection portion (fig.3; col.3, lines 41-67, col.4, lines 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of wherein the wearable device further includes a detection portion configured to detect whether the wearable device is being worn, the at least one second processor is configured to transmit, to the voice control device, information indicating whether the wearable device is being worn, in accordance with a detection result by the detection portion in Abbott’s invention as taught by Litovsky. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide sound convenient for the user.
Abbott further does not specifically teach that the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is not being worn and when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is being worn. Litovsky teaches that the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is not being worn and when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is being worn (fig.3; col.3, lines 41-67, col.4, lines 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is not being worn and when the at least one first processor receives information indicating that the wearable device is being worn in Abbott’s invention as taught by Litovsky. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to produce sound perceived to be emanating from a first physical location or a second physical location depending on whether near field sound for the wearer or far field sound for a person other than the wearer is desired.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286).
Regarding claim 9, Abbott teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to cause the power tool to operate in accordance with the command only if the at least one first processor determines that the voice represented by the voice data is the voice of the at least one user (abstract; paragraphs 0003, 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0071, 0072, 0159).
However, Abbott does not specifically teach wherein: the at least one first processor is configured to perform voiceprint authentication using the voice data and comparison data of at least one registered user. Abbott teaches sharing a user voice profile for voice commands (e.g., VoiceID) (see paragraph 0071) and determining one or more voice commands present in the audio data (see paragraph 0159). Whereas examiner takes an official notice that wherein: the at least one first processor is configured to perform voiceprint authentication using the voice data and comparison data of at least one registered user are well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of wherein: the at least one first processor is configured to perform voiceprint authentication using the voice data and comparison data of at least one registered user in Abbott’s invention in order to properly operate power tool using command from a particular user.
Regarding claim 11, Abbott teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the command, before causing the power tool to perform the operation in accordance with the command (paragraphs 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0085, 0087, 0088, 0159).
However, Abbott does not specifically teach confirming, with a user, whether execution of the command is allowed. Examiner takes an official notice that confirming, with a user, whether execution of the command is allowed is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of confirming, with a user, whether execution of the command is allowed in Abbott’s invention in order to properly operate power tool using command from a particular user after getting confirmation for the command being allowed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286) in view of Nagao et al. (Japanese pub. No. JP2021066004A).
Regarding claim 13, Abbott teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to (i) determine whether the command identified based on the voice data is executable without limitation in the power tool (paragraphs 0026-0028, 0056, 0057, 0085, 0087, 0088, 0159).
However, Abbott does not specifically teach wherein the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the command is determined not to be executable without limitation and when the command is determined to be executable without limitation. Nagao teaches wherein the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the command is determined not to be executable without limitation and when the command is determined to be executable without limitation (page 3, paragraphs 5-7, page 6, paragraph 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott to incorporate the feature of wherein the at least one first processor is configured to perform different processing depending on when the command is determined not to be executable without limitation and when the command is determined to be executable without limitation in Abbott’s invention as taught by Nagao. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to perform different operation based on the use of limitation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0347286) in view of Nagao et al. (Japanese Pub. No. JP2021066004A) further in view of KANZAKI et al. (Japanese Pub. No. JP2014124060A).
Regarding claim 14, Abbott teaches wherein: the power tool includes (i) a motor and (ii) at least one third controller (paragraphs 0107, 0108); and
when the at least one third controller receives control information for executing the command from the voice control device during driving of the motor (paragraphs 0107, 0108).
However, Abbott in view of Nagao does not specifically teach that the tool controller causes the power tool to operate in accordance with the control information after the driving of the motor is stopped. KANZAKI teaches that the tool controller causes the power tool to operate in accordance with the control information after the driving of the motor is stopped (page 7, paragraph 4, page 13, lines 6-8). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott in view of Nagao to incorporate the feature of the tool controller causing the power tool to operate in accordance with the control information after the driving of the motor is stopped in Abbott’s invention in view of Nagao’s invention as taught by KANZAKI. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to cause the power tool to operate conveniently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
December 29, 2025