DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 02/29/2024.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-15 have been amended;
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025, 05/13/2025, 08/06/2025, 11/21/2025, 01/20/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Application on 02/29/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Machining and driving device (102) (page 4)
Further component (152) (page 2)
Communication partner device (158) (page 6)
Detection unit (106) (page 7)
Mechanical coupling device (170) (page 14)
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.
Claims 2-15 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 2, 4-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mashiko et al. (US 20140069672; Mashiko).
Regarding Claim 1 Mashiko discloses a handheld device (1) for manual operation by a user, the handheld device (1) comprising:
a machining and driving device which is configured for machining a substrate by means of a driving force (par 59-63); and
at least one further component (82) which can be electromechanically coupled or is coupled to the machining and driving device (par 59-63);
wherein the machining and driving device (par 59-63) and the at least one further component (82) are configured to communicate with one another on an equal footing by means of a universal bus connection (par 65, 80, 100-112).
Regarding Claim 2 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses a power supply device (24), which is configured to provide drive energy for driving the machining and driving device (par 59-63);
wherein the at least one further component (82) is electromechanically couplable or coupled to the power supply device (24) (par 68, 80, 98-99); and wherein the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and the at least one further component (822) are configured to communicate with one another on an equal footing by means of the universal bus connection (par 80, 98-99).
Regarding Claim 4 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses the at least one further component (82) comprises:
a detection unit (par 65) which is configured to detect detection data indicative of force transmission during machining of the substrate by means of the machining and driving device (par 59-63);
and/or a control unit (par 65) which is set up to control the processing of the substrate in accordance with a target specification, in particular based on detection data detected by means of a detection unit (par 65-73).
Regarding Claim 5 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses at least one of the following features:
wherein the detection unit (par 65) can be attached or is attached to the machining and driving device (par 59-63), in particular is configured as a removable detection adapter;
wherein the control unit (par 65) can be attached or is attached to the power supply device (24); wherein the detection unit (par 65) and the control unit (par 65) form an adapter (154) which is physically connected to one another and can be handled separately from the rest of the handheld device (1), comprising a connecting body (par 65-73) mechanically connecting the detection unit (par 65) and the control unit (par 65) outside the rest of the handheld device (1).
Regarding Claim 6 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses the at least one further component (82) comprises at least one token (par 65) formed in such a way that the token (par 65) controls at least a part of the handheld device (1) when mechanically coupled to at least one of the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and another of the at least one further component (82), and/or transmits data, in particular parameter values, between components (24, par 59-63, 82), the token (par 65) being configured as a plug-in element for insertion into a receiving opening (par 80), in particular configured as an electromechanical interface, of at least one of the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and the other of the at least one further component (82).
Regarding Claim 7 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses wherein the token (par 65) comprises:
a processor (par 80) configured to control interaction with the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and optionally the other of the at least one further component (82); and
a mechanical coupling device (83) which is configured for mechanical coupling with the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and optionally the other of the at least one further component (82);
wherein when the mechanical coupling device (83) is mechanically coupled to a respective one of the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) and optionally the other of the at least one further component (82), the token (par 65) is configured to control the respective one of the machining and driving device (par 59-63), the power supply device (24) or the optional other of the at least one further component (82) by means of the processor (par 80).
Regarding Claim 12 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses configured as a pulse screwdriver.
Regarding Claim 15 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses method of controlling a handheld device (1) configured for manual operation by a user, according to claim 1, the method comprising:
machining of a substrate using a driving force by means of a machining and driving device (par 59-63);
providing drive energy for driving the machining and driving device (par 59-63);
electromechanical coupling of at least one further component (82) to the machining and driving device (par 59-63); and
communication on an equal footing between the machining and driving device (par 59-63) and the at least one further component (82) by means of a universal bus connection. (par 65, 80, 100-112)
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 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.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiko (US 20140069672) in view of Davis et al. (US 20220156412; Davis)
Regarding Claim 8 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses the token (par 65)
However, Mashiko does not expressly disclose the token is configured to communicate with a communication partner device by means of a communication link that is different from the universal bus connection, in particular a wireless communication link.
Davis teaches a handheld device that includes machine and driving device (par 22), at least one further component (108b) in communication by means of a universal bus connection (par 51). Davis further teaches the token (par 118) is configured to communicate with a communication partner device (300) by means of a communication link (par 59-65) that is different from the universal bus connection (par 68) providing a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus (par 65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the token of Mashiko to include the token as taught by Davis since par 65 of Davis suggests that such a modification provides a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses the machining and driving device (par 59-63) is configured for bidirectional communication with the power supply device (24) by means of the universal bus connection (par 80, 98-99); the power supply device (24) is configured for bidirectional communication with a further component (82) configured as a token (par 65) by means of the universal bus connection (par 80, 98-99);
However, Mashiko does not expressly disclose the token is configured to communicate with a communication partner device by means of a wireless communication link different from the universal bus connection.
Davis teaches a handheld device that includes machine and driving device (par 22), at least one further component (108b) in communication by means of a universal bus connection (par 51). Davis further teaches the token (par 118) is configured to communicate with a communication partner device (300) by means of a wireless communication link (par 59-65) different from the universal bus connection (par 68) providing a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus (par 65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the token of Mashiko to include the token as taught by Davis since par 65 of Davis suggests that such a modification provides a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 13 Mashiko discloses the invention as described above, Mashiko further discloses a handheld device (1) according to claim 1.
However, Mashiko does not expressly disclose at least one communication partner device which is configured to communicate with at least one of the machining and driving device and the at least one further component by means of a communication link which is different from the universal bus connection.
Davis teaches a handheld device that includes machine and driving device (par 22), at least one further component (108b) in communication by means of a universal bus connection (par 51). Davis further teaches at least one communication partner device (300) which is configured to communicate with at least one of the machining and driving device (par 22) and the at least one further component (108b) by means of a communication link (par 59-65) which is different from the universal bus connection (par 68) providing a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus (par 65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the token of Mashiko to include the token as taught by Davis since par 65 of Davis suggests that such a modification provides a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 14 Mashiko in view of Davis discloses the invention as described above, Davis further discloses comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the at least one communication partner device (300) is adapted to communicate with a power supply device configured to provide drive power for driving the machining and driving device by means of the communication link (par 59-65) different from the universal bus connection; (par 64)
wherein the at least one communication partner device (300) is selected from a portable user terminal, a tablet or a mobile communication device; (par 65)
wherein the at least one communication partner device (300) and the handheld device are coupled or can be coupled in a communicative manner by means of a communication network the Internet, an intranet or a mobile communication network; (par 65)
wherein the communication link (par 59-65) different from the universal bus connection (par 68) is a wireless communication link; (par 65)
wherein the communication link (par 59-65) is a Bluetooth communication link, a 5G communication link, an LTE communication link. (par 65) providing a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus (par 65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the token of Mashiko to include the token as taught by Davis since par 65 of Davis suggests that such a modification provides a remote controlled handheld device for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 10, 11 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:
Regarding Claim 3 the Prior Art does not teach wherein the machining and driving device, the power supply device and the at least one further component are configured to communicate with one another on an equal footing by means of the universal bus connection with the proviso that communication between the machining and driving device and the power supply device is prioritized in the event of a collision and/or in the event of a bandwidth shortage in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10 the Prior Art does not teach each of the machining and driving device, the detection and/or control adapter and the power supply device is configured for bidirectionally communication with a respective token of the at least one further component by means of the universal bus connection; and each of the tokens is configured to communicate with a communication partner device by means of a wireless communication link different from the universal bus connection in addition to the limitations in Claims 2 and 1.
Regarding Claim 11 the Prior Art does not teach each of the machining and driving device, the detection and/or control adapter, the power supply device and the further power supply device is configured for bidirectional communication with a respective further component configured as a token by means of the universal bus connection; and each of the tokens is configured to communicate with a communication partner device by means of a wireless communication link different from the universal bus connection in addition to limitations included Claims 2 and 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20190067756); USB, peer to peer communication link
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights