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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14, 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.
Currently, no claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitzen et al. (5553675) in view of Purohit et al. (2014/0132093).
In reference to claims 1 and 14, Pitzen et al. disclose a rotary power tool (10) comprising:
a main housing (4, Figure 1);
a motor positioned within the main housing (12, Figure 1);
a handle extending from the main housing (6, Figure 1);
a contactless trigger (40, Note; it is contactless because it uses a magnet 44, similar to the magnet claimed by the applicant) that is configured to activate the motor when depressed, the trigger including:
a trigger body (45),
a holder (see figure below showing first and second interpretations of the holder) fixed to the main housing, the trigger body being movable (see claim 1) relative to the holder along a longitudinal axis (see figure below),
an arm (46) fixed to the trigger body and having a magnet holder (see figure below) that receives a magnet (44), and
a spring (42) for biasing the trigger body away from the holder (Figure 2);
and
electrical circuit means (Column 6, Lines 55-57) including a first Hall sensor (52) and a second Hall sensor (54),
wherein the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor are configured to detect depression of the trigger controlling operation (i.e. including activation of the motor) of the motor (Column 2, Lines 60-63 and Column 6, Line 60-Column 7, Line 19).
The examiner further notes that Pitzen et al. also teach that the electrical control means can be placed in the handgrip cavity (53, Column 8, Lines 58-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pitzen et al. lack,
a control board disposed within the handle and including a microcontroller (MCU); and
wherein the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor are configured to detect depression of the trigger and emit signals to the MCU for controlling operation of the motor.
However, Purohit et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide electrical circuit means (i.e. control circuit board 800 and power circuit board 820, see Figures 10a-10b) for a power tool (100, see Title) comprising; a control board (800) that is disposed within a handle (112) and also includes a microcontroller (802) and various Hall sensors (220, paragraphs 4 and 39); and wherein the Hall sensors are configured to detect depression of the trigger and emit signals to the MCU for controlling operation of the motor (paragraphs 4, 39 and 68).
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 electrical circuit means, of Pitzen et al., with the known technique of providing an electrical circuit means including the control board and the microcontroller that are disposed within a handle, as taught by Purohit et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous, versatile and compact device that minimizes interconnections between the components (paragraphs 7, 64 and 67).
In reference to claim 6, Pitzen et al. disclose that the first and second Hall sensors output a logic low signal when the trigger body is depressed (Column 7, Lines 1-5) and the magnet passes over the first and second Hall sensors, and wherein the first and second Hall sensors output a logic high signal when the trigger body is released and the magnet is spaced away from the first and second Hall sensors (Column 6, Line 62-Column 7, Line 1).
In reference to claims 10 and 17, Pitzen et al. disclose that an output of the first Hall sensor and an output of the second Hall sensor are the same, except that the second Hall sensor detects the presence of the magnet longer than the first Hall sensor (Column 6, Line 62-Column 7, Line 1 and Column 7, Lines 1-5).
In reference to claim 11, Pitzen et al. disclose that the trigger is a contactless trigger (because it uses a magnet and Hall sensors)
In reference to claim 12, Pitzen et al. disclose that the arm is fixed to (i.e. at 41) and moves in unison with the trigger body (Figure 2 and Column 6, Lines 45-54).
In reference to claim 15, Purohit et al. further disclose that the control PCB and the power PCB are in a stacked arrangement, such that the control PCB and the power PCB are parallel to each other (paragraph 67 and Figures 10a-10b).
In reference to claim 18, Pitzen et al. disclose that the trigger moves along the longitudinal axis when depressed (see claim 1 disclosing that, “trigger assembly movable relative to said handle portion”).
In reference to claim 19, Pitzen et al. disclose that the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor are disposed adjacent to each other sequentially in a direction (i.e. a rightward horizontal direction) parallel to the longitudinal axis (because the longitudinal axis is also parallel).
Claims 2-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitzen et al. (5553675) in view of Purohit et al. (2014/0132093) and Mergener et al. (9450471).
In reference to claims 2 and 16, Pitzen et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, and Purohit et al. further disclose that the control board is a control printed circuit board (800 of Purohit et al.) and the power tool further includes a power printed circuit board (820 of Purohit et al.) disposed within the handle (paragraph 67 of Purohit et al.) and includes motor FETs (paragraph 71 of Purohit et al.), but lack,
switch field effect transistors (FETs) and motor FETs.
However, Mergener et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar power tool (100, Figure 1) comprising; similar electrical circuit means (PCB) with switch field effect transistors (124) and motor FETs (124, Column 1, Line 57-Column 2, Line 2).
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 electrical circuit means, of modified Pitzen et al., with the known technique of providing an electrical circuit means including the switch field effect transistors (FETs) and motor FETs, as taught by Mergener et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a more efficient layout of components thereby enabling a more compact power tool, simplified tool assembly, improved thermal control (e.g., due to improved air flow), and other benefits (Column 2, Lines 14-17).
In reference to claim 3, Purohit et al. further disclose that the control PCB and the power PCB are in a stacked arrangement, such that the control PCB and the power PCB are parallel to each other (paragraph 67 and Figures 10a-10b).
In reference to claim 4, modified Pitzen et al. further disclose that the switch FETs and the motor FETs of the power PCB are in facing relationship to the MCU of the control PCB (see Figures 10a-10b of Purohit et al.).
In reference to claim 5, modified Pitzen et al. further disclose that the control PCB detects depression of the trigger (see Column 2, Lines 60-63 of Pitzen et al.) and, in response, controls the switch FETs and the motor FETs (as taught by Purohit et al. and Mergener et al.) of the power PCB to drive the motor (see Column 4, Lines 48-49 of Mergener et al.).
Claim 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitzen et al. (5553675) in view of Purohit et al. (2014/0132093) and Philipp (6025683).
In reference to claim 7, Pitzen et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and already disclose sending signals to the microprocessor, but lack,
the first Hall sensor provides the logic low signal and the logic high signal to a first input of a NOR gate, and wherein the second Hall sensor provides the logic low signal and the logic high signal to a second input of the NOR gate.
However, Philipp teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar power tool (20, Figure 1) comprising; a first Hall sensor (48) provides the logic low signal and the logic high signal to a first input of a NOR gate, and wherein the second Hall sensor (50 or 52) provides the logic low signal and the logic high signal to a second input of the NOR gate (Column 7, Lines 17-32, Column 8, Lines 1-27).
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 device, of modified Pitzen et al., with the known technique of providing hall sensors that send signals to a respective NOR gate, as taught by Philipp, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively controls the operation of trigger switches (Column 7, Lines 16-34).
In reference to claim 8, Philipp discloses that the NOR gate provides a logic high signal to an AND gate only when both the first and second inputs of the NOR gate receive a logic low signal, and wherein the MCU provides a logic high signal to the AND gate when the first and second Hall sensors output a logic low signal (Column 7, Lines 17-32, Column 8, Lines 1-27 and Column 10, Line 65-Column 11, Line 15).
In reference to claim 9, Philipp discloses that the AND gate includes a first input receiving a signal from the NOR gate and a second input receiving a signal from the MCU, wherein the AND gate outputs a logic high signal when both the NOR gate and the MCU output the logic high signals to respective inputs of the AND gate, thereby activating the motor (Column 9, Lines 1-16).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitzen et al. (5553675) in view of Purohit et al. (2014/0132093) and Rueblinger et al. (2014/0008090).
In reference to claim 13 and 20, Pitzen et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the trigger body including guide channels that slide within guides of the holder to ensure that the trigger body travels along the longitudinal axis.
However, Rueblinger et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a trigger body (21) including guide channels (at 62 and 63) that slide within guides (60 and 61) of a holder (22) to ensure that the trigger body travels along a longitudinal axis (paragraph 32).
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 trigger body, of modified Pitzen et al., with the known technique of providing a trigger body including the guide channels that slide within guides of the holder, as taught by Rueblinger et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively stabilizes movement of the trigger during normal operation (paragraph 32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (2015/0097641) also discloses a similar a rotary power tool (10) comprising: a contactless trigger (40) including a magnet (46), a holder (18) fixed to a main housing (14), the trigger body being movable relative to the holder along a longitudinal axis (paragraph 22), a spring (54) for biasing the trigger body away from the holder (Figure 2); electrical circuit means (30) including a first Hall sensor (32) and a second Hall sensor (34).
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