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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I (Figures 1, 4 and 9-10) corresponding claims 1-8 and 11-23 in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner has requested a support whether the working member 520 in Figures 9-10 works with the tool body 110 or the tool body 410 or else. Applicant states that “Applicant confirms that the working member 520 in FIGS. 9 and 10 is compatible with the tool body 110, and therefore is also part of Species I” without any explanation and how the working member 520 can work or is compatible with the tool body 110. See the rejections below for detail.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 and 09/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thin metal tube and the electrical heating wire wound around or received in a distal end of the thin metal tube in claim 8 (currently no shown a tube, a heating wire…); the identification element in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 shows the guide 524 that appears a plurality of outer flat surfaces, however, Figure 10 shows an inner circumference 5243 of the guide 5243 being a complete circular shape or an approximately circular shape (can it fit to non-circular shape of the guide 524?). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 should be added a comas “, “ between “the first engagement structure” and “the working member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-7 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 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.
The scope of claims 4-7 is directly to an embodiment (working member) in Figure 9-10, however, this embodiment is failing to comply with the written description requirement that can be worked with the tool body 110 as claimed.
Reading at Applicant’s specification, para. 50 states that “ The base of the fifth working member 520 is similar to the bases of the previous four working members, and an electrical contact 5211 at the proximal end thereof can be clearly seen in FIG. 9.” Which means all the working member have the similar base, but it does not mean that they work with the same tool body (see the electrical contact 5211 and the electrical contacts 1213). Also, Applicant’s specification, para. 58 “For example, in one embodiment, the working tool kit may include the tool body, the first working member, the second working member and the third working member, so the above depictions of the tool body, the first working member, the second working member and the third working member should be considered as preferred embodiments of the working tool kit.”.
There is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed the working members have the same bases, but different electrical contacts that can be worked with the same tool body.
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 are 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 1, “a working tool comprising a tool body…an interchangeable working member …allow another working member with the second engagement structure to be attached to the tool body” is confusing since a working tool comprises one tool body working with one working member. If the tool body allows to work with another working member, the claimed invention should be claimed a kit. Thus, the preamble is unclear. See Applicant’s specification, paras. 57-58 “the working tool kit”.
Claim 2 “the mounting base is formed as a substantially rotationally symmetric structure” is unclear what structure be. Since it is substantially, rotationally, and symmetric. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 3, the base has a triangle structure 121 and sliding structures 1212a and a recess notch 1212b. Based on these structures, it is unclear what scope should be given this “a substantially rotationally symmetric structure”. Further, the language “substantially” renders indefinite. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially”. Claim 18 has the same issue.
Claim 3, line 2 “a working portion” that is unclear since claim 1 already claims “a working portion” in line 3. It is unclear whether the working portion of claim 2 is an additional working portion or referencing the working portion of claim 1. Claim 4 has the same issue.
The scope of claims 4-7 are unclear since a tool body of claims 1-2 is directly to the tool body 110 (see Applicant’s specification) that works with a working member having flushed electrical contacts 1213 and two sliding grooves 1212a as seen in Figure 3, however, the working member having a depth adjustment mechanism is directly to another embodiment of figures 9-10 that is unclear whether it works with the tool body of claim 1 or not since there is a protrusion of an electrical contact 5211 that causes this working member is NOT slidingly coupled to the tool body 110 (further this embodiment is no shown two sliding grooves 1212a). therefore, it is unclear. Claims 19-23 have the same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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 1-3, 11-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Leimbach et al (US 9750499) hereinafter Leimbach.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Leimbach shows a working tool (Figures 1-2) comprising: a tool body (10) with a distal end at which a first engagement structure (4000/1002/37/38, Figure 2) is disposed; and
an interchangeable working member (200) including a mounting base (202/203) and a working portion (300) connected to a distal end of the mounting base, the mounting base including a second engagement structure (see Figure 3) disposed at a proximal end of the mounting base and configured to engage with the first engagement structure the working member configured to be electrically connected with the tool body upon attachment (for an example the electrical connector 4010 mating with connector 4000), wherein the working tool is configured to allow the working member to be detached from the tool body, and allow another working member with the second engagement structure to be attached to the tool body (see the specification that discusses “interchangeable shaft assembly 200” in in Figures 1-2 to … the shaft assembly 1200 in Figure 32. Please note that as this is written, it can be allowed another same working member to be interchangeable).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Leimbach shows that the working tool defines a central axis extending from a proximal end to the distal end of the tool body (see Figure 1), and the mounting base (202/203) is formed as a substantially rotationally symmetric structure about the central axis (see the structure of the base 202/203).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Leimbach shows that the working member includes the working portion, the working portion including one of a linear working tip extending along the central axis (see Figure 1, both structures 302, 306 are linear)
Regarding claims 11-12, Leimbach shows that a distal end face of the tool body is provided with an electrical contact portion (4000, Figure 2) in direct electrical contact with the working member, an identification element is integrated on the electrical contact portion, the identification element is configured to be communicatively connected with a control element in the tool body to send a signal to the control element so that the control element processes and identifies a type of the working member attached to the tool body (see the discussion of contacting the electrical contacts of both the tool and the working members as discussed in Col 18, lines 53-63 to cont. Col.19, lines 1-65) and wherein the electrical contact portion is directly disposed on the control element (Col 18, lines 53-63 to cont. Col.19, lines 1-65).
Regarding claim 14, Leimbach shows that the first engagement structure comprises an engagement groove disposed on a distal end face of the tool body and having an end open and an opposite closed end (see Figure 2), the second engagement structure comprises an engagement protrusion (244, Figure 3) disposed on a proximal end face of the mounting base and corresponding to the engagement groove, and the working member is mounted to the tool body in a direction perpendicular to the central axis by sliding the engagement protrusion into the engagement groove (Figures 2-3), the tool body further comprising a mounting button (722, Figures 1 and 7) disposed at or near the open end of the engagement groove, the mounting button is configured to be actuated between a locked position for preventing the working member from being mounted to and disengaged from the tool body, and an unlocked position for allowing the working member to be mounted to and disengaged from the tool body.
Regarding claim 15, Leimbach shows that the mounting button is configured to slide between the locked position and the unlocked position in a direction parallel to the central axis, the tool body further including a spring positioned on a proximal side of the mounting button and being parallel to the central axis, wherein the spring is compressed at least when the mounting button is located at the unlocked position (see Col. 16, lines 60 “ biasing member (not shown). …a latch button 722 that is slidably mounted on a latch actuator assembly 720 that is mounted to the chassis 240. The latch button 722 may be biased in a proximal direction relative to the lock yoke 712. …an unlocked position by biasing the latch button the in distal direction which also causes the lock yoke 712 to pivot out of retaining engagement with the distal attachment flange 700 of the frame 20. When the lock yoke 712 is in “retaining engagement” with the distal attachment flange 700 of the frame 20, the lock lugs 716 are retainingly seated within the corresponding lock detents or grooves 704 in the distal attachment flange 700.”).
Regarding claim 16, Leimbach shows that an operation start button (32, Figure 1) is disposed on the tool body, and the operation start button and the mounting button are disposed opposite about the central axis.
Regarding claim 17, Leimbach shows that the working tool is configured to allow a user to select the working member based on at least one of a target working depth, a size of a target material, a material of the target material and a working type (as this is written, it is unclear what the workpiece material be, therefore, a selection of the shaft assemblies to be coupled to the tool is for user’s purposes. Please note that this invention is structures of the working tool, the purposes of user are for selecting one of the working members are intended used,).
Regarding claims 18-19, Leimbach shows all of the limitations as stated above.
Claims 1-3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyun (KR 20070059492A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hyun shows a working tool (Figures 1-4) comprising: a tool body (180) with a distal end at which a first engagement structure (182, Figure 5) is disposed; and
an interchangeable working member (see the advantageous-effects “the tip can be replaced easily” that means it can be interchangeable with other tips) including a mounting base (158) and a working portion (152) connected to a distal end of the mounting base, the mounting base including a second engagement structure (where the reference 154b in Figure 7) disposed at a proximal end of the mounting base and configured to engage with the first engagement structure the working member configured to be electrically connected with the tool body upon attachment (see the sensor plug 124 and see the abstract), wherein the working tool is configured to allow the working member to be detached from the tool body (see Figure 7), and allow another working member with the second engagement structure to be attached to the tool body (see the replacement of soldering tips above).
Regarding claim 2, Hyun shows that the working tool defines a central axis extending from a proximal end to the distal end of the tool body (see Figure 5), and the mounting base is formed as a substantially rotationally symmetric structure about the central axis (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hyun shows that the working member includes the working portion, the working portion including one of a linear working tip extending along the central axis (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hyun shows that the working portion comprises a thin metal tube (150, Figure 6, since it is conducting heat, it is a metal of some sorts), and an electrical heating wire (121) is wound around or received in a distal end of the thin metal tube.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR 20070059492A and Translation) in view of Ozawa (JP2021194645 and Translation).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Hyun shows that the working member includes the working portion having a working tip extending along the central axis (Figure 7), however, Huyn silently discusses a depth adjusting mechanism
Ozawa shows a depth adjusting mechanism (5 Figure 10) connected to a mounting base and at least partially surrounding the working tip (Figures 9a, 9b), wherein a distal end of a working portion protrudes relative to a distal end face of the depth adjusting mechanism to define a target working depth along the central axis between the distal end of the working portion and the distal end face of the depth adjusting mechanism, and the depth adjusting mechanism can be operated to make a position of its distal end face adjustable along the central axis (see Figures 9a, 9b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the working tool of Hyun to have a depth adjusting mechanism, as taught by Ozwa, in order to allow the tip tip is shortened and the precision soldering work is made easy by attaching the grip cylinder to the soldering iron or adjusting the position of grip cylinder when soldering the micro portions (see the advantage of Ozawa).
Regarding claims 5-6, as best understood, Hyun shows that the depth adjustment mechanism comprises: a guide fixed on the mounting base (a surface 2 of Ozawa);
a movable member (5) comprising: a slidable portion configured as an annular structure (Figures 11-12 of Ozawa) that fits around and is slidable along the guide;
a depth limiting portion (51, Figures 11-12 of Ozawa) located on a distal side of the annular portion and formed as an annular structure surrounding the working tip, the distal end face being defined on the depth limiting portion; and
a connection portion (the body portion) connecting the slidable portion with the depth limiting portion, wherein an average radial distance between the depth limiting portion and the working tip is greater than an average radial distance between the slidable portion and the working tip (see Figures 13-14 of Ozawa and the distance of adjustment is user’s purposes and intended use).
Regarding claim 7, Hyun shows all of the limitations as stated above except the shape of the guide including a side wall of the guide around the central axis comprises at least two planar walls and at least two arcuate walls, the planar walls and the arcuate walls being alternately arranged in a circumferential direction.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the shape of the guide should include a side wall of the guide around the central axis comprises at least two planar walls and at least two arcuate walls, the planar walls and the arcuate walls being alternately arranged in a circumferential direction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the guide of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a side wall of the guide around the central axis comprises at least two planar walls and at least two arcuate walls, the planar walls and the arcuate walls being alternately arranged in a circumferential direction. Furthermore, the shape of the guide is merely a recognized equivalent way to any shape of the guide, since applicant has not disclosed that having any specific construction of the claimed shape solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the cylindrical shape or circular shape would perform equally well while being constructed of claimed shape of the guide. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey etal., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claims 20-23, the modified working member of Hyun shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 4-7 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR 20070059492A and Translation).
This is an alternative rejection of claim 8, if one argues that Hyun’s the thin tube is not metal, then Examiner takes official notice that it is well known to have the tube tip of a soldering tool to be metal. Additional examples can be provided if it is challenged. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the tube tip to be metal. Doing so allows the soldering tool to conduct heat to the tube tip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: claim 13 is free of prior art because the prior art does not teach that the working portion comprises an electrically-heatable material, a battery is disposed in the tool body, the battery defines a battery axis that is parallel to the central axis and is spaced apart from the central axis, the battery having a top end radially spaced from the tool body by a first distance defining a first spacing and a bottom end radially spaced from the tool body by a second distance defining a second spacing that is less than the first spacing,, and wherein the control element is a PCB extending from a location with the first spacing to the electrical contact portion in a direction parallel to the central axis with combination of claims 1-2, 11-13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights