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 .
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.
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 1-6, 9-13, 16, 21-23, 25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 789 766 A1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “EP ‘766”) in view of Steffen, US 6,474,300 B1.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘766 teaches a power trowel comprising:
a handle (41);
a housing (6);
a blade assembly (2);
a motor coupled to the blade assembly (“driven by an engine” [0044]);
a sensor configured to provide an output signal ([0015]); and
a controller connected to the motor and the sensor (“adapted to monitor…when said monitor signal satisfies a safety criteria, the controller is further adapted to stop [the trowel]”; Abstract and [0015]).
While EP ‘766 discusses a sensor for safety criteria but fails to disclose any orientation signal indicative of an orientation of the power trowel or the remaining claim limitations, Steffen teaches a power working tool and discusses the danger that can occur when a user lets go of the tool or when the tool tips over (Abstract) and discloses corresponding sensors to register the fact that the tool operator is holding the handle of the tool correctly (column 3 lines 3-6), determining the angular position of the tool (column 3 lines 10-13) and the sensors delivering a signal leading to adjustment of the engine speed to a nonhazardous speed (column 2 lines 23-28 and column 5 lines 2-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a motion sensor configured to output a signal, wherein the output signal includes an orientation signal indicative of an orientation of the power trowel and have the controller of EP ‘766 be connected to the motion sensor, the controller configured to: receive the orientation signal from the motion sensor, determine, based on the orientation signal, whether the orientation of the power trowel is greater than or equal to an orientation threshold, and decrease an amount of power provided to the motor in response to the orientation of the power trowel being greater than or equal to the orientation threshold in view of Steffen’s disclosure as discussed above to avoid putting the power trowel operator at risk.
Regarding claim 2, since EP ‘766 discusses angular velocity and the controller generating a control stop signal when the threshold value is reached or exceeded ([0039]-[0040]), the resulting combination includes the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, since Steffen discloses that the corresponding sensors are on the holding handle (column 3 lines 3-6), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motion sensor located on the handle in view of Steffen’s further disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination includes the orientation of the power trowel being an angle of the handle (Steffen’s column 3 lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the motion sensor is located on the housing, it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion sensor of the resulting combination to be located on the housing to be able to determine when the power trowel turns over since Steffen explicitly discusses the danger of the tool turning over (column 3 lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 6, Steffen further discloses an alternative for starting the tool and discloses battery ignition is possible to pass on a signal (column 2 lines 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have a battery pack connected to the motor and a switch connected to the controller, the battery pack, and the motor as an alternative way to provide power to the power trowel. The resulting combination yields the controller being configured to decrease the amount of power provided to the motor by: operating, in response to the orientation of the power trowel being greater than or equal to the orientation threshold, the switch to disconnect the battery pack from the motor since EP ‘766 discloses the controller being adapted to stop the power trowel for safety (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Steffen further discloses that it is known in the art to provide a deadman’s handle in which it is necessary for the tool operator to pivot the deadman’s handle upward and as soon as the operator lets go of the deadman’s handle, the deadman’s handle pivots downward which causes reduction of the engine speed to an idling speed (“Description of the Related Art”, column 1 lines 56-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a detector for detecting whether an operator is holding the handle in view of Steffen’s further disclosure that a deadman’s handle is already known in the art as a safety precaution. Since the resulting combination includes a controller which monitors and adjusts, it is an obvious modification to have the controller be configured to determine whether the operator is holding the handle and deactivate the motor in response to determining the operator is not holding the handle since EP ‘766 discloses the controller being adapted to stop the power trowel for safety (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, since the resulting combination includes the deadman’s handle being required to be pivoted upward by the tool operator, the resulting combination includes the detector being a lever operable to be actuated by the operator and the controller being further configured to determine that the operator is holding the handle when the lever is actuated and determine that the operator is not holding the handle when the lever is not actuated.
Regarding claim 11, Steffen further discloses an alternative for starting the tool and discloses battery ignition is possible to pass on a signal (column 2 lines 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have a battery pack configured to provide power to the motor and, since the resulting combination includes the controller which monitors and adjusts, have the controller be configured to disconnect the battery pack from the motor in response to determining that the operator is not holding the handle as another way to stop a hazardous situation if the operator is not holding on to the power trowel and EP ‘766 disclosing that the controller is adapted to stop motion of the power trowel (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Steffen further discloses that an additional safety loop, which the operator has to firmly hold in order to operate the tool, may be provided on the handle (column 4 lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detector be a tether configured to be connected to the power trowel as an alternate type of safety precaution in view of Steffen’s further disclosure. The resulting combination makes obvious that the controller is further configured to determine whether the tether is connected to the power trowel and deactivate the motor in response to determining the tether is not connected to the power trowel in view of the controller of the resulting combination monitoring and providing adjustments and EP ‘766 disclosing that the controller is adapted to stop motion of the power trowel (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination includes the claim since EP ‘766 discloses that a stop control signal may be an electrical signal such that it switches off the engine ([0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Steffen discloses that when a hazardous state is detected, the engine speed is reduced to a nonhazardous speed, for example an idling speed (column 2 lines 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the resulting combination to also be configured to decrease the amount of power provided to the motor to a non-zero value in view of Steffen’s disclosure of reducing the engine speed to an idling speed to minimize hazard as discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, the elements of the resulting combination from claim 1 make obvious the method steps claimed.
Regarding claim 22, the elements of the resulting combination from claim 2 make obvious the method steps claimed.
Regarding claim 23, the elements of the resulting combination from claims 3 and 4 make obvious the method clauses claimed.
Regarding claim 25, the elements of the resulting combination from claim 5 make obvious the method clause claimed.
Regarding claim 36, the elements of the resulting combination from claim 16 make obvious the method step claimed.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘766 in view of Steffen as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Grahl, EP 2 468 982 A2.
Regarding claim 7, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a load sensor related to the motor, Grahl teaches a power trowel and discloses an engine sensor that monitors the speed of the engine and have a controller reduce the rotor speed when the load placed on the engine exceeds a predefined threshold to prevent stalling of the engine during overload conditions (Abstract; [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a load sensor configured to provide a load signal indicative of a load condition of the motor and have the controller of the resulting combination be further configured to monitor the load condition of the motor and deactivate the motor in response to the load condition of the motor being outside a predetermined load operating range in view of Grahl’s disclosure as discussed above to prevent the motor from stalling, and in view of EP ‘766 disclosing that the controller is adapted to stop motion of the power trowel (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Grahl further discloses that one threshold may be an RPM of the engine ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load condition to be an RPM of the motor in view of Grahl’s suggestion as an aspect to monitor to prevent the motor from stalling.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘766 in view of Steffen as applied above to claim 1, further in view of CN 108697495 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘495”).
Regarding claim 14, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the detector being a metal conductor integrated into the handle, CN ‘495 discloses a tool with a handle having an inductive sensor to determine when the handle contacts a hand (claim 1). Examiner notes that an inductive sensor comprises a metal conductor, and when a hand is present it disrupts the electromagnetic field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the detector be a metal conductor in the form of an inductive sensor integrated into the handle in view of CN ‘495’s disclosure as an alternate way to determine when the handle contacts a hand since the resulting combination pertains to determining whether the operator is holding the handle. The resulting combination makes obvious that the controller is further configured to monitor a resistance of the metal conductor and deactivate the motor in response to detecting a change in the resistance of the metal conductor in view of EP ‘766 disclosing that the controller is adapted to stop motion of the power trowel (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Various power trowels or tools are disclosed with controllers connected to sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights