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 . Claims 1-16 are pending in the current application.
Drawings
Each of Figures FIG. 4(a), FIG. 4(b), FIG. 4(c), FIG. 4(d), FIG. 4(e), FIG. 5(a), FIG. 5(b), FIG. 6(a), FIG. 6(b), and FIG. 8, are objected to because the lines of the drawings are not sufficiently sharp and clear to distinguish the various parts of the device. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
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 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (Eur. Pat. No. EP 1840918 A2).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Jones discloses a mechanism (11, 17; FIG. 2a) for operating a switch (13a, 13b) for a powered device, the mechanism comprising: a first manually operable member (11), and a second manually operable member (17), the mechanism being configured to activate the switch (13a, 13b) in response to a first motion (Figures 2a, 2b) and a different second motion (Figures 2b, 2c) of the first manually operable member (11), wherein the second manually operable member (17) is configured to move (Figures 2f, 2g) in response to the second motion of the first manually operable member (11).
Regarding Claim 2, Jones discloses that the second motion of the first manually operable member (11) can only be achieved after the first motion (¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones discloses that the mechanism is configured to activate the switch (13a, 13b) in response to movement of the second manually operable member (17; ¶ [0025]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones discloses that the mechanism is configured to deactivate the switch (13a, 13b) in response to a deactivation motion of the second manually operable member (17; ¶ [0026]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones discloses that the deactivation motion of the second manually operable member (17) is a translation (Figures 2f, 2g).
Regarding Claim 6, Jones discloses that the deactivation motion of the second manually operable member (17) is a single motion (Figures 2f, 2g).
Regarding Claim 7, Jones discloses that the first motion is a rotation of the first manually operable member (11; Figures 2a, 2b, 2c).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones discloses that the second motion (Figures 2b, 2c) is a translation of the first manually operable member (11; Figures 2b, 2c).
Regarding Claim 9, Jones discloses that the second motion is a translation in a direction perpendicular to an axis about which the first manually operable member (11) is configured to rotate (member 12 translates towards 17 and perpendicular to movement of 11 that is opposite to point 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Jones discloses that the mechanism comprises one or more further resilient elements (17a) configured to bias the second manually operable member (17) towards a deactivated configuration (¶ [0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jones discloses that the first manually operable member (11) is configured to engage an intermediate member (12) configured to move relative to a housing (10; Figures 2c) of the mechanism (Figures 2c, 2d).
Regarding Claim 13, Jones discloses that the intermediate member (12) is rotatably connected to the housing (Figures 2c, 2d).
Regarding Claim 14, Jones discloses that the intermediate member (12) is configured to engage the second manually operable member (17; Figures 2c, 2d).
Regarding Claim 15, Jones discloses that the intermediate member (12) is configured to move in response to the second motion of the first manually operable member (11) to drive motion of the second manually operable member (17; Figures 2c, 2d).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones.
Jones discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed resistance. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a resistance to not affect an initial operation movement since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Watanabe (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0118766 A1).
Jones discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention (see Claim 1 above), but does not disclose the claimed powered device, wherein the powered device is a rammer or a plate compacter having a handle, and wherein the mechanism is mounted to the handle.
However, Watanabe discloses a powered device, wherein the powered device is a rammer or a plate compacter having a handle, and wherein the mechanism is mounted to the handle (Abstract, ¶ [0091], FIG. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jones with those of Watanabe such that a tool impact force can be readily and finely adjusted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights