DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltola (WO 2019/068958; “Peltola”) in view of Olsson (SE 1650805 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Peltola discloses an attachment (100) on a power machine comprising:
an elongated hammer (104) including an upper end in sealed communication with a gas accumulator (pg. 3 para. 21-28) and an opposing lower end (Fig. 1b);
an elongated tool (103, 116) including an upper end having an impact surface and an opposing lower end having a work surface (Fig. 1b), wherein the tool (103, 116) is configured to be actuated when the lower end of the hammer (104) collides with the impact surface of the tool (103, 116; Fig. 1b);
a hammer position sensor (pg. 8 para. 16-26).
Peltola fails to disclose a controller configured to electrically activate the hammer into a compression stroke and a firing stroke based on measurements gathered from the hammer position sensor.
However, Olsson teaches a controller (107). In the instant case, the “...a controller configured to…” language means a controller can be programmed to perform a particular function. Therefore, the controller of Olsson is capable of performing the aforementioned function.
It would have been obvious to modify the hammer position sensor of Peltola by having provided the controller of Olsson, in order to control the position of the hammer.
Peltola in view of Olsson fail to disclose a hammer position sensor apart from and located above the upper end of the hammer and configured to measure a location of the upper end of the hammer relative to the hammer position sensor, wherein the hammer position sensor is located through a wall in the gas accumulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the position sensor as claimed above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 14, Peltola discloses further comprising a first electromagnetic coil surrounding a first portion of the hammer (104; Fig. 1c) and a second electromagnetic coil (104; Fig. 1c) spaced apart from the first electromagnetic coil and surrounding a second portion of the hammer (104; Fig. 1c).
Peltola fails to disclose wherein a height of the first electromagnetic coil is greater than a height of the second electromagnetic coil.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide separately sized coils, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Peltola et al. (WO 2019/068958l “Peltola”).
Peltola discloses an attachment (100) on a power machine comprising:
an elongated hammer (104) including an upper end in sealed communication with a gas accumulator and an opposing lower end (pg. 3 para. 21-28);
an elongated tool (103, 116) including an upper end having an impact surface and an opposing lower end having a work surface (Fig. 1b), wherein the tool (103, 116) is configured to be actuated when the lower end of the hammer (104) collides with the impact surface of the tool (103, 116; Fig. 1b); and
at least one electromagnetic coil (106) that surrounds a portion of the hammer (104; Fig. 1).
Peltola fails to disclose the at least one electromagnetic coil being configured to actuate the hammer into a compression stroke that moves the hammer in a first direction and a firing stroke that is further aided by compressed gas in the gas accumulator to move the hammer in a second opposing direction and cause the lower end of the hammer to collide with the impact surface of the tool to actuate the tool.
Peltola’s electromagnetic coil is designed to remove pressure shocks to the hydraulic system.
Regarding claim 17, the most relevant prior art is Peltola et al. (WO 2019/068958l “Peltola”) in view of Olsson (SE 1650805 A1).
Peltola discloses an attachment (100) on a power machine comprising:
an elongated hammer (104) including an upper end in sealed communication with a gas accumulator and an opposing lower end (pg. 3 para. 21-28);
an elongated tool (103, 116) including an upper end having an impact surface and an opposing lower end having a work surface (Fig. 1b), wherein the tool (103, 116) is configured to be actuated when the lower end of the hammer (104) collides with the impact surface of the tool (103, 116; Fig. 1b); and
at least one electromagnetic coil (106) that surrounds a portion of the elongated hammer (104; Fig. 1).
Olsson teaches a controller (17).
Peltola in view of Olsson fail to disclose a controller configured to electrically activate the at least one electromagnetic coil to actuate the elongated hammer into a compression stroke that moves the hammer in a first direction and a firing stroke that is further aided by compressed gas in the gas accumulator to move the hammer in a second opposing direction and cause the lower end of the hammer to collide with the impact surface of the tool to actuate the tool.
Peltola in view of Olsson disclose an electromagnetic coil is designed to remove pressure shocks to the hydraulic system.
4. Claim 13, 15 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 13, the most relevant prior art is Peltola et al. (WO 2019/068958l “Peltola”).
Peltola discloses a single electromagnetic coil (106) surrounding a portion of the elongated hammer (104; Fig. 1b).
Peltola fails to disclose wherein during a compression stroke the controller provides the single electromagnetic coil with a first pulse of electrical current to create a first temporary magnetic field that induces the hammer to move in a first direction and wherein during a firing stroke and aided by compressed gas in the gas accumulator the controller provides the single electromagnetic coil with a second pulse of electrical current to create a second temporary magnetic field that induces the hammer to move in an opposing second direction from the first direction to cause the lower end of the hammer to collide with the impact surface of the tool to actuate the tool.
Peltola discloses an electromagnetic coil is designed to remove pressure shocks to the hydraulic system.
Regarding claim 15, the most relevant prior art is Peltola et al. (WO 2019/068958l “Peltola”).
Peltola discloses the first and second electromagnetic coils (Fig. 1c)
Peltola fails to disclose wherein during the compression stroke the first electromagnetic coil is provided with a first pulse of electrical current to create a first temporary magnetic field that induces a center of the hammer to move in the first direction to align with a center of the first electromagnetic coil and wherein during the firing stroke the second electromagnetic coil is provided with a second pulse of electrical current to create a second temporary magnetic field that induces the center of the hammer to move in the second opposing direction to align with a center of the second electromagnetic coil.
Peltola discloses an electromagnetic coil is designed to remove pressure shocks to the hydraulic system, not initiate a compression stroke.
Regarding claim 16, there is not cited prior art that discloses a dead blow sensor.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
6. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731