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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 12 December 2022.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statements, filed 12/12/2024 and 12/8/2025, which have been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of each of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 forms is attached to this Office action.
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:
Claim 1: “measuring unit”, “storage unit”, “estimation unit”
Claim 2: “notification unit”
Claim 3: “restrictor configured to restrict”
Claim 5: “setter configured to set”
Claim 12: “storage unit”, “measuring unit”
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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “measuring unit”, which is described in the specification as “[t]he measuring unit 4 according to this embodiment includes a current measuring unit 41 and a torque measuring unit 42.” (¶[0038]). “The current measuring unit 41 includes, for example, a shunt resistor or a Hall element and outputs a voltage proportional to the current to be measured. The torque measuring unit 42 may include, for example, a magnetostrictive strain sensor or a resistive strain sensor.” (¶[0039]-[0040])
Claims 1 and 12 recite “storage unit”, which is described in the specification as “The storage unit 52 (refer to FIG. 1) is a nonvolatile storage device which may be implemented as, for example, a hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid-state drive (SSD). The storage unit 52 stores the physical quantity measured by the measuring unit 4 in association with the time information.” (¶[0044])
Claim 1 recites “estimation unit”, which is described in the specification as “The linkage device 6 includes a computer system including one or more processors and a memory. The estimation unit 63 includes the one or more processors of the linkage device 6. The functions of the estimation unit 63 are performed by making the one or more processors of the estimation unit 63 execute a program stored in the memory.” ¶[0054])
Claim 2 recites “notification unit”, which is described in the specification as “[t]he notification unit 231 includes a display device such as a display for providing visually notification of information, for example.” (¶[0031]). “[T]he notification unit 231 may also make notification of the expected lifetime information either as a sound (such as a voice) or vibration. Still alternatively, the notification unit 231 may also be implemented as, for example, a transmitter for transmitting a notification signal to an external terminal device (such as a mobile device) outside of the electric tool section 1.” (¶[0082])
Claim 3 recites “restrictor configured to restrict”, which is described in the specification as “The restrictor 532 restricts (e.g., prevents) the notification of the expected lifetime information by the notification unit 231 while the attachment part 33 is being driven. For example, the restrictor 532 controls the notification unit 231 to prevent the notification unit 231from displaying the expected lifetime information while the attachment part 33 is being driven.” (¶[0049])
Claim 5 recites “setter configured to set”, which is described in the specification as “the setter 533 sets the predetermined range in accordance with information provided by the electric tool section 1B”. (¶[0050])
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 1-3, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-37166, hereinafter “JP ‘166”, reference made to Murui (US 2021/0331305), which is the English Translation of JP ‘166, as stated on the IDS dated 12 December 2024, in view of Furui (US 2014/0159919).
JP ‘166 teaches:
Claim 1: An electric tool system (100-fig.1) comprising an electric tool section (1-fig.1),
a measuring unit (20,21,22,23,24-fig.1),
a storage unit (19-fig.2), and
an estimation unit (10-fig.2; ¶[0021]),
the electric tool section (1-fig.2) including:
a driving part (3-fig.2) configured to be supplied with motive power by a power source and thereby generate torque (¶[0015]-[0016]);
an attachment part (8-fig.2) to which a tip tool is attachable (¶[0016]); and
a transmission part (6-fig.2) configured to transmit the torque from the driving part to the attachment part and thereby drive the attachment part (¶[0016]),
the measuring unit (20,21,22,23,24-fig.1) being configured to measure a physical quantity concerning the electric tool section (¶[0017]-[0018]),
the storage unit (11 and 19-fig.2) being configured to store a failure diagnostic value in association with time information about a point in time when the physical quantity is measured (¶[0023]-[0024]), the failure diagnostic value being at least one of the physical quantity measured by the measuring unit (¶[0030]), and
the estimation unit being configured to obtain, based on the failure diagnostic value and the time information that are stored in the storage unit, deterioration information for the electric tool section to cause any failure (¶[0038]-[0042]).
JP ‘166 does not expressly teach expected lifetime information about an estimated amount of time that is expected to take for the electric tool section to cause any failure.
However, Furui teaches an estimation unit being configured to, based on diagnostic and time information that are stored in the storage unit (¶[0023]), expected lifetime information about an estimated amount of time that is expected to take for the electric tool section to cause any failure (“(vii) the expected remaining service life of one or more replaceable parts in the power tool and/or the battery pack” ¶[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool system of JP ‘166, by having the estimation unit configured to determine, as taught by Furui, so the user of the power tool knows in advance of failure to ensure the tool does not fail during a job and the operator is prepared with a replacement tool part.
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui teaches:
Claim 2: The electric tool system of claim 1, further comprising a notification unit (JP ‘166: 18-fig.2) configured to make notification of the expected lifetime information obtained by the estimation unit (JP ‘166: ¶[0044]-[0046]; Furui: ¶[0026],[0147]).
Claim 3: The electric tool system of claim 2, further comprising a restrictor configured to restrict, while the attachment part is being driven, the notification of the expected lifetime information to be made by the notification unit (JP ‘166: ¶[0046]).
Claim 6: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein the estimation unit is configured to obtain the expected lifetime information (Furui: ¶[0026]) based on a plurality of the failure diagnostic values belonging to an entire period and the time information (JP ‘166: ¶[0033]), the plurality of the failure diagnostic values and the time information being stored in the storage unit (JP ‘166: ¶[0033]).
Claim 7: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein the estimation unit is configured to obtain the expected lifetime information (Furui: ¶[0026]) based on only a plurality of the failure diagnostic values (JP ‘166: ¶[0033]), belonging to a partial period that forms part of an entire period, and the time information, instead of the plurality of the failure diagnostic values belonging to the entire period and the time information which are stored in the storage unit (JP ‘166: ¶[0048]-[0050]), the partial period being a period from a point in time preceding a current time through the current time (JP ‘166: ¶[0032]; fig.4).
Claim 8: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein the estimation unit is configured to obtain the expected lifetime information (Furui: ¶[0026]) based on only a failure diagnostic value (JP ‘166: ¶[0033]) corresponding to a current time and a plurality of the failure diagnostic values belonging to a period preceding the current time and the time information (JP ‘166: ¶[0032]; fig.4), instead of the plurality of the failure diagnostic values belonging to an entire period and the time information which are stored in the storage unit (JP ‘166: ¶[0048]-[0050]).
Claim 10: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein the failure diagnostic value includes torque measured by the measuring unit based on strain generated by application of torque to the attachment part (JP ‘166: ¶[0016]-[0017]).
Claim 11: The electric tool system of claim 1 any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the physical quantity includes a physical quantity concerning vibration of the electric tool section (24-fig.2; ¶[0017]-[0018],[0023]).
JP ‘166 teaches:
Claim 12: A diagnosis method (¶[0021]) for making a diagnosis (Abstract) about an electric tool section (1-fig.1),
the electric tool section (1-fig.1) including:
a driving part (3-fig.2) configured to be supplied with motive power by a power source and thereby generate torque (¶[0015]-[0016]);
an attachment part (8-fig.2) to which a tip tool is attachable (¶[0016]); and
a transmission part (6-fig.2) configured to transmit the torque from the driving part to the attachment part and thereby drive the attachment part (¶[0016]),
the diagnosis method comprising:
a storing step including storing (¶[0023]-[0025]), in a storage unit (11 and 19-fig.2), a failure diagnostic value in association with time information about a point in time when a physical quantity concerning the electric tool section is measured by a measuring unit (¶[0023]-[0024]), the failure diagnostic value being at least one of the physical quantity concerning the electric tool section which has been measured by the measuring unit (¶[0030]); and
an estimating step including obtaining, based on the failure diagnostic value and the time information that are stored in the storage unit, deterioration information for the electric tool section to cause any failure (¶[0038]-[0042]).
JP ‘166 does not expressly teach expected lifetime information about an estimated amount of time that is expected to take for the electric tool section to cause any failure.
However, Furui teaches an estimation unit being configured to, based on diagnostic and time information that are stored in the storage unit (¶[0023]), expected lifetime information about an estimated amount of time that is expected to take for the electric tool section to cause any failure (“(vii) the expected remaining service life of one or more replaceable parts in the power tool and/or the battery pack” ¶[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool system of JP ‘166, by having the estimation unit configured to determine, as taught by Furui, so the user of the power tool knows in advance of failure to ensure the tool does not fail during a job and the operator is prepared with a replacement tool part.
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui teaches:
Claim 13: A non-transitory storage medium storing thereon a program designed to cause one or more processors of a computer system to perform the diagnosis method of claim 12 (JP ‘166: ¶[0021]).
Claims 4, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-37166, hereinafter “JP ‘166”, reference made to Murui (US 2021/0331305), which is the English Translation of JP ‘166, as stated on the IDS dated 12 December 2024, in view of Furui (US 2014/0159919), further in view of Yasugi (US 2003/0163286)
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui teaches:
Claim 4: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein the estimation unit is configured to obtain, as the expected lifetime information an estimated amount of time that is expected to take for the failure diagnostic value (Furui: ¶[0012]).
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui does not expressly teach a value falling within a predetermined range.
However, Yasugi teaches a value falling (¶[0021]) within a predetermined range (¶[0061]-[0063],[0073]; S6-fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the electric tool system of Yasugi, by having a predetermined range to calculate tool failure, as taught by Yasugi, “to provide a tool abnormality detecting device capable of precisely detecting a breakage of the tool or a status of the tool immediately before the breakage to enable a timely change of the tool by automatically determining an appropriate threshold of a load torque and/or thrust of the tool for discriminating a breakage of the tool irrespective of a machining condition and kinds of a tool, a workpiece and a machine tool.” (Yasugi ¶[0011])
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui and Yasugi teaches
Claim 5: The electric tool system of claim 4, further comprising a setter (JP ‘166: ¶[0033]) configured to set the predetermined range in accordance with information provided by an additional electric tool section (JP ’16: 50-fig.3), the additional electric tool section being provided separately from the electric tool section (JP ‘166: ¶[0029]-[0031]).
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui teaches:
Claim 9: The electric tool system of claim 1, wherein, a current supplied from the power source to the driving part measured by the measuring unit (22-fig.2; ¶[0017],[0023]), torque measured by the measuring unit based on strain generated by application of torque to the attachment part (21-fig.2; ¶[0017],[0025]).
JP ‘166 as modified by Furui does not expressly teach a failure diagnostic value includes a value calculated by subtracting actually measured physical quantity from theoretical physical quantity.
However, Yasugi teaches a failure diagnostic value includes a value calculated by subtracting actually measured physical quantity from theoretical physical quantity (¶[0016]-0019],[0057]-[0061]; fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the electric tool system of Yasugi, by calculating tool failure, as taught by Yasugi, “to provide a tool abnormality detecting device capable of precisely detecting a breakage of the tool or a status of the tool immediately before the breakage to enable a timely change of the tool by automatically determining an appropriate threshold of a load torque and/or thrust of the tool for discriminating a breakage of the tool irrespective of a machining condition and kinds of a tool, a workpiece and a machine tool.” (Yasugi ¶[0011])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached form (PTO-892) are cited to show methods and devices for controlling electric tool systems. All are cited as being of interest and to show the state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 18 December 2025
Prosecution Insights