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 .
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 “opening part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 15, 16, 18, 24-26 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 4 recites: “wherein a change in the air pressure can be is generated by delivering additional air into the chamber and/or is coupled to the operation” – it is unclear how the change is “coupled” to the operation?
With regards to claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the increase (in air pressure)”
Claim 24 recites: “wherein the pressure increase can be regarded as is a completed compression of a pellet” – it is unclear how a pressure increase is a completed compression.
With regards to claim 25, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the housing side”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krauss (US Patent 6,154,943).
With regards to claim 1, Krauss discloses a hand tool comprising:
a chamber (21) in which an air volume with an air pressure is configured to be enclosed;
an actuator (handle 2);
a moving part (54); and,
an opening part (22 or 27) independent of the moving part,
wherein the actuator drives the moving part by a hydraulic medium configured to perform an intended operation [Column 6, lines 65+ - Column 7, lines 1-15],
wherein the moving part is configured to change the air pressure by delivering additional air into the chamber [Column 6, lines 65+ - Column 7, lines 1-15],
With regards to the following limitations: “wherein the air pressure is evaluated for identifying a state of the hand tool, and wherein the driving of the moving part is configured to be performed with or without making use of the pressure.” It is noted that absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 2, Krauss discloses further comprising a pressure sensor (56) configured to measure the air pressure in the chamber, and a measured air pressure is evaluated for detecting the state of the hand tool. It is noted that absent any particular structure to perform the evaluation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 4, Krauss is considered to meet the limitation “wherein a change in the air pressure can be is generated by delivering additional air into the chamber and/or is coupled to the operation” since absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 6, Krauss discloses a hand tool comprising:
a chamber (cylinder 21) in which an air volume with an air pressure is configured to be enclosed;
an actuator (handle 2);
a moving part (plunger 54);
wherein the actuator drives the moving part by a hydraulic medium configured to perform an intended operation [Column 6, lines 65+ - Column 7, lines 1-15],
With regards to the following limitations: “wherein the air pressure is changed, and is evaluated for acquiring a state of the hand tool, and wherein the operation can be is performed independently of the air pressure that arises in the chamber” It is noted that absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 7, Krauss discloses further comprising a pressure sensor (56) is provided, the pressure sensor being configured to measure the air pressure in the chamber, and a measured air pressure can be is evaluated for acquiring the state of the hand tool. It is noted that absent any particular structure to perform the evaluation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 8, Krauss is considered to meet the limitation “wherein a change in the air pressure can be is generated by changing a size of the chamber and/or by changing a quantity in terms of a volume of air enclosed in the chamber and/or arises when the operation is triggered or performed” since absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 13, Krauss discloses wherein the moving part (54) is a traversing part, which can be is traversed from a traversing start position into a traversing end position [Column 7, lines 5-10].
With regards to claim 14, Krauss discloses wherein a traversal of the traversing part (54) into the traversing end position is accompanied by a reduction of the volume of the chamber (18).
With regards to claim 15, Krauss discloses wherein the increase in air pressure is associated with an increase in a temperature of the air volume in the chamber (18) and/or wherein the air pressure increase provides a measure for a traversing path.
With regards to claim 18, Krauss discloses wherein the air pressure increase and the increase in temperature can be is regarded as a measure for the traversing path and absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 20, Krauss discloses wherein the traversal of the traversing part (54) into the traversing end position makes it possible to raise the air pressure and/or wherein the increase in air pressure in the chamber can be regarded as is the traveling end position of the traversing part having been reached since absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
With regards to claim 23, Krauss discloses further comprising a working head has having a tool with a pressing contour (55), wherein the pressing contour (24) has an opening, as seen in Figure 1.
With regards to claim 24, as best understood, Krauss discloses wherein the pressure increase can be regarded as is a completed compression of a pellet since absent any particular structure to perform the above functional limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Krauss’s hand tool is considered to meet these limitations at least while the tool is in use i.e. under operation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss in view of Rzasa et al. (hereafter “Rzasa”) (US 2017/0057040).
Krauss discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a temperature sensor is provided for measuring the increase in temperature. Rzasa is relied upon to teach a hand tool comprising a temperature sensor (126) is provided for measuring the increase in temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Krauss’ tool with a temperature sensor because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss in view of Frenken (US 2021/0339367).
Krauss discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising a connected accumulator, and that a pressure increase in the chamber is the presence of a properly connected accumulator undamaged on the housing side. Frenken is relied upon to teach a hand tool comprising a connected accumulator (10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Krauss’ tool with an accumulator because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss in view of Frenken and Rzasa.
The combination of Krauss and Frenken discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a movement of the gearbox is configured to increase the pressure in the chamber. Rzasa is relied upon to teach a hand tool with a gearbox (48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Krauss’ tool with a gearbox because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11-12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 2019/0232481.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights