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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…to the first PCB said first and second…”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “…to the first PCB; said first and second…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,084 B2 in view of Forster et al. (US 2012/0293103 A1) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 2015/0244194 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the patent discloses all the claimed limitation except “the power module is formed in a second PCB that is spaced apart from and parallel to the first PCB” and “wherein the electrical switch unit further includes an electrical connection interface that is capable of receiving a different control module and a different power module, selectably and interchangeably to enable customized operation to effect different user-specific operational settings.
However, Forster teaches an electrical switch unit comprises a power module (e.g. Figs. 5-6 & [0052]) that is formed in a second PCB (e.g. Fig. 3: 130) that is spaced apart from and parallel to a first PCB of the electrical switch unit (as shown in Fig. 3, PCB 130 and PCB 140 are spaced apart and parallel to each other); and
the electrical switch unit further including an electrical connection interface that is capable of receiving a different control module and a different power module (Figs. 1, 3-4, 10b, and 19-20: connections between the control module PCB 140 and power module PCB 130 to the power tool are considered as the electrical connection interface).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the patent with the teachings of Forster to implement different electronic components on different PCB so as to utilize plurality of smaller PCB to accommodate physical shape of the electrical switch unit. Since applicant does not discloses utilize plurality of PCB solves any particular problem and Forster teaches it is known to utilize plurality of PCB in a single device, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize plurality of PCB, and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
In addition, although obvious that the PCB of power modules 130 and the PCB of control modules 140 as shown in Fig. 3 of Forster is replaceable, it fails to explicitly disclose that feature.
However, Tabuchi teaches an electrical connection interface that is capable of receiving a different control module and a different power module selectably and interchangeably (e.g. Fig. 2: PCB 20, 30, 40 and [0061]: replaceable as desired) to enable customized operation to effect different user-specific operational settings (intended use).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of the patent and Forster with the teachings of Tabuchi to replace power module and control module as needed (e.g. replaced a new one when the modules are malfunctioning).
Regarding claims 2-7, claims 2, 4-7 and 9 of the patent discloses the claimed invention, respectively.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al. (US 2012/0293103 A1) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 2015/0244194 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Forster discloses an electrical switch unit (e.g. Figs. 1-4: 100) for use with a variable speed electrical device (e.g. [0049]) to control operation of a DC motor (e.g. [0048]) of the electrical device, the electrical switch unit comprising:
a housing (e.g. Fig. 2A: 100, 104) which houses a pair of electrical switching contacts (e.g. Figs. 3, 8A, 11: 128 has a pair of claws that touches the upper and lower section of the pad 162 when the trigger 102 is pressed; thus, achieve the variable speed changing based on movement of the trigger), and,
an actuator (e.g. Fig. 2A: 102) operably connected with at least one of the pair of electrical switching contacts (e.g. Fig. 3), the actuator being configured for movement relative to the pair of electrical switching contacts in response to operation of a finger-operable trigger so as to arrange the pair of electrical switching contacts into at least one of a closed configuration wherein power is able to be supplied from the DC power source to the DC motor via the pair of electrical switching contacts, and, an opened configuration wherein power is not able to be supplied from the DC power source to the DC motor via the pair of electrical switching contacts (e.g. [0077-0078]);
a signaling module (e.g. Fig. 16: 500) associated with the electrical switch unit (e.g. Figs. 1, 3 and 16: 100, 140) comprising signaling circuitry for sensing the movement of the actuator and outputting a signaling module signal indicative of the sensed movement or position of the actuator (e.g. Fig. 12: 500 & [0085-0089]);
a power module (e.g. [0052]) comprising at least one power switching device for controllably supplying power from the DC power source to the DC motor (e.g. Figs. 5-6);
a control module (e.g. Fig. 16: 146 and [0052, 0060, 0065, 0077]) comprising control circuitry for receiving the signaling module signal, and responsive to the received signaling module signal, outputting a control module signal to control the at least one power switching device of the power module wherein the at least one power switching device controllably supplies power from the DC power source to the DC motor to allow operation of the DC motor at a speed corresponding to the sensed movement or position of the actuator; and
wherein, the electrical switch unit is characterized in that the at least one of the pair of electrical switching contacts, the signaling module, and the control module are integrally formed together in a first PCB (e.g. Fig. 3: 140),
wherein the power module is formed in a second PCB (e.g. Fig. 3: 130) that is spaced apart from and parallel to the first PCB (as shown in Fig. 3, PCB 130 and PCB 140 are spaced apart and parallel to each other);
said first and second spaced-apart PCBs including at least one of electrically conductive pins (e.g. Fig. 3: 132 & [0052]), conductive pathways (e.g. Fig. 3: inherently discloses within PCBs 130 & 140 for connecting components on the PCBs), and conductive buses integrally embedded in the first and second spaced-apart PCBs to provide electrical communication with the at least one of the pair of electrical switching contacts (e.g. Figs. 3 & 8A: 128 and [0077]: trigger 102, 128 electrically connected to board 140), the signaling module (e.g. Fig. 16: signaling module 500 is electrically connected to board 140), the control module (e.g. Figs. 3 & 16: control module 146 is electrically connected to board 140) and the power module (e.g. [0052]: power module is formed on board 130); and
wherein the electrical switch unit further including an electrical connection interface that is capable of receiving a different control module and a different power module (Figs. 1, 3-4, 10b, and 19-20: connections between the control module PCB 140 and power module PCB 130 to the power tool are considered as the electrical connection interface).
Although obvious that the PCB of power modules 130 and the PCB of control modules 140 as shown in Fig. 3 of Forster is replaceable, it fails to explicitly disclose that feature.
However, Tabuchi teaches an electrical connection interface that is capable of receiving a different control module and a different power module selectably and interchangeably (e.g. Fig. 2: PCB 20, 30, 40 and [0061]: replaceable as desired) to enable customized operation to effect different user-specific operational settings (intended use).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Forster with the teachings of Tabuchi to replace power module and control module as needed (e.g. replaced a new one when the modules are malfunctioning).
Regarding claim 2, Forster discloses the DC motor includes a brushless DC motor (e.g. [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Forster discloses the at least one power switching device includes a MOSFET device (e.g. [0004, 0005, 0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Forster discloses a heat dissipation and/or heat dispersion element arranged in thermal communication with a bottom region of the power module to allow heat dissipation from the power ([0055]: first and second metal layers on top and bottom regions of the power circuit board layer 130).
Regarding claim 6, Forster discloses a first and second heat dissipation and/or heat dispersion element arranged in thermal communication with a bottom region and a top region of the power module respectively to allow heat transfer from the power module ([0055]: first and second metal layers on top and bottom regions of the power circuit board layer 130).
Regarding claim 7, Forster discloses at least one of an electrical power tool and an electrical gardening tool (e.g. Abstract: power tool).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al. (US 2012/0293103 A1) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 2015/0244194 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogura (US 2014/0302353 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Forster fails to disclose, but Ogura teaches a protective resin coating for protecting components of at least one of the signaling module, the control module and the power module (e.g. [0127]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Forster with the teachings of Ogura to use resin coating to electrically insulate the control circuit board (e.g. [0127]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights