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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on August 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 have been cancelled and claims 21-32 have been newly added therefore claims 13-32 remain pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a position sensor disposed within the housing and configured to measure a position of the power tool” in claims 13, 21 and 29. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the position sensor” as being, “one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and the like” (see paragraph 55). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a position sensor”, is being interpreted as one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and the like and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a transmitter configured to transmit information” in claims 13, 21 and 29. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the transmitter” as using, “Bluetooth or WiFi transmission protocols” (see paragraph 44). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a transmitter”, is being interpreted as anything that transmits using Bluetooth or WiFi transmission protocols and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electronic processor configured to” in claims 13, 21 and 29. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the electronic processor” as being, “a microprocessor, a microcontroller, multiple processors” (see paragraph 51). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “an electronic processor”, is being interpreted as a microprocessor, a microcontroller, multiple processors and/or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-18, 21-26 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austin et al. (2009/0138116).
In reference to claims 13, 21 and 29, Austin et al. disclose a power tool (20) for determining peak torque for fastening operations, comprising;
a first fastener (i.e. BOLT FL13-1) positioned at a first location (56, see Figure 2);
a second fastener (i.e. BOLT FL13-2) positioned at a second location (56, see Figure 2);
the power tool comprising:
a housing (25, Figure 1);
a motor (22) disposed within the housing and configured to drive a tool bit (paragraph 40);
a position sensor (i.e. accelerometer 30, which meets the limitation of the position sensor, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) disposed within the housing (Figure 1) and configured to measure a position of the power tool (paragraphs 43 and 44);
a transmitter (i.e. wireless transmitter 33 [see paragraph 45], which meets the limitation of the transmitter, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) configured to transmit information from the power tool to a remote device (i.e. at 12 or 40); and
an electronic processor (i.e. CPU 40 [see paragraph 45], which meets the limitation of the electronic processor, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6c above) coupled to the position sensor and the transmitter and configured to:
determine, based on an output from the position sensor, that the power tool is at a first location (see Figure 2 showing that the tool is at one of the locations (i.e. one of the shaded or non-shaded locations 56, also see paragraph 57) corresponding to various fasteners [i.e. BOLT FL13-1, BOLT FL13-2, BOLT FL13-3, etc.], paragraph 48),
determine that the power tool is performing a fastening operation (i.e. repair procedure) for a first fastener at the first location (paragraph 49),
record the first position corresponding to the first fastener (see Figure 2 showing that shaded fasteners were already worked on and saved in the display 50, also see paragraph 57),
provide an indication (i.e. from display 50 in Figure 2) that the power tool is at the first location (Figure 2),
determine, using the position sensor, that the power tool is moved from the first location (i.e. a location corresponding to BOLT FL13-1) corresponding with the first fastener to a second location (i.e. a location corresponding to BOLT FL13-2) corresponding with a second fastener (see the “Complete” portion under “Status” indicated that the tool moved from BOLT FL13-1 to BOLT FL13-2), and
provide an indication that the power tool is at the second location (Figure 2).
The examiner notes the method claim 29 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 or claim 21 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 or claim 21 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 29.
In reference to claims 14 and 22, Austin et al. disclose that the position sensor determines the first location and the second location of the power tool based on a dead reckoning technique. Note, the applicant discloses that the dead reckoning technique is, “…a dead reckoning technique. That is, the position sensor 1035 may calculate a position of the power tool 1000 by using a previously determined position, and advancing that position based upon readings from the accelerometer, the gyroscope, the magnetometer, etc.” (paragraph 55). Since, position sensor (30) “records position locations associated with the tool 20” (paragraph 52) and “tracks and displays location information 106 of the tool” (paragraph 52), it meets the limitation of claim 14.
In reference to claims 15, 23 and 30, Austin et al. disclose that the position sensor calculates the second position of the power tool by using the first position and advancing the first position based upon readings from an accelerometer and a gyroscope (paragraphs 7, 31 and 44).
In reference to claims 16 and 24, Austin et al. further comprise a display (50) indicating that the power tool is fastening the first fastener and the second fastener (Figure 2 and paragraph 44).
In reference to claims 17, 25 and 31, Austin et al. disclose that the electronic processor is further configured to transmit, using the transmitter, the first location and the second location to the remote device (paragraph 36).
In reference to claims 18, 26 and 32, Austin et al. further comprise a torque sensor (paragraphs 42, 45 and 49) configured to determine torque values (66) associated with the first fastener, wherein the torque values are stored with the first location of the first fastener (Figure 2).
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 19, 20, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. (2009/0138116) in view of Eshghy (5212862).
In reference to claims 19 and 27, Austin et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
that electronic processor is further configured to:
generate a torque-angle curve based on the torque values,
determine an attribute of the first fastener based on the torque-angle curve, and
provide an indication of the attribute of the first fastener in response to determining the attribute of the first fastener.
However, Eshghy teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an electronic processor (see Column 5, Lines 15-17, disclosing, “The spindle module 34 contains a 68000 CMOS microprocessor”) is further configured to:
generate a torque-angle curve based on torque values (Figures 2-4),
determine an attribute (i.e. torque or angle) of the first fastener based on the torque-angle curve (Figure 4), and
provide an indication of the attribute of the first fastener in response to determining the attribute of the first fastener (Figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the electronic processor, of Austin et al., with the known technique of providing an electronic processor that generates the torque-angle curve, as taught by Eshghy, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively determines a target point on a projection of the characteristic curve for the fastener which is midway through the window is calculated…to determine a target torque or angle value (Column 3, Lines 1-13).
In reference to claims 20 and 28, Eshghy discloses that the electronic processor is further configured to determine that the first fastener has started moving due to the fastening operation based on the torque-angle curve (Figure 2a), wherein the torque values prior to the determination that the first fastener has started moving are ignored in determining a peak torque value associated with the first fastener (Column 6, Lines 6-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stencel et al. (2011/0093110) teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a torque tool (Paragraph 25) with an electronic processor (at 21 and/or 22) configured to determine that a first fastener (fastener 32 at position A) has started moving due to a fastening operation (see step 116 and/or 118, and Paragraphs 51-54), recording the torque values (with 22) is started after the determination that the first fastener has started moving from a first position (Paragraph 54), determine using a position sensor (at 13 or from 13/48), that the power tool is moved from a first location (location A) of the first fastener to a second location (location C) of a second fastener and stop recording of the torque values (because the device has been disabled or shut down at location C because location C is not the next proper position in the sequence, see Paragraphs 23 and 49) in response to determining that the power tool is moved to the second location (note; a fastening sequence can formed from a sequence including positions; A, B, C, D, E, F, see Paragraph [23], thus if the device moves from location A to location C, the device will be disabled or shut down at the second location C, see step 110 and Paragraph [49], because "P.sub.C and P.sub.N are not equal", see Paragraph [48]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights