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 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:
“control unit configured to control driving” in claims 12, 13 & 16 [corresponding structure is control circuit board comprising of an MCU and switching elements; see paragraph 0058]; and
“control unit is configured to actuate” in claims 14 & 18 [corresponding structure is control circuit board comprising of an MCU and switching elements; see paragraph 0058].
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.
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 8, 15-16 and 19 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.
In reference to claims 8, 15 and 19, the claims state “the first illumination member and the second illumination member are spaced apart by a distance that is larger than the diameter of the rebars” and claim 19 states “a longest dimension of the transmissive part is larger than the diameter of the two or more rebars”, this renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the limitation “diameter of the rebars/the two or more rebars” is an unknown measurement, therefore it is unclear how the distance between two fixed elements (i.e. the first and second illumination members) or the dimension of the transmissive part is to be larger than the diameter of rebars when the diameter of the rebars can be a various range of sizes that is also an unknown. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 2024/0271438) in view of Mittmann (US 2015/0202753).
In reference to claim 1, Asakura discloses a rebar tying tool (2) comprising
a twisting motor (96) configured to drive a twisting member (98) that twists a wire, which is wound around two or more rebars [see paragraph 0058],
a main-body housing (6, 8), which houses the twisting motor (96) [see paragraph 0041].
Asakura discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the tool includes an illumination member is provided on the housing.
However, Mittmann teaches a hand tool with a light for illuminating the workspace wherein lights are mounted on the housing (11) for the purpose of providing illumination to the work area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator [see paragraphs 0031, 0038; figure 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of Asakura to include an illumination member, as taught by Mittmann, in order to improve the tool by providing illumination to the working area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator.
In reference to claim 2, the combination further discloses the first illumination member comprises a transmissive part, through which the light is transmitted from the interior of the first illumination member to the exterior of the first illumination member [see paragraph 0035], and a longest dimension of the transmissive part is capable of being larger than the diameters of the two or more rebars.
In reference to claim 3, Asakura further discloses the tool comprises a guide member (42) configured to wind the wire around the rebar, wherein the main body housing (4) comprises a guide member holding part that holds the guide member [see figure 3]. The combination further discloses the first illumination member is disposed on the guide member holding part.
In reference to claim 4, Mittmann further teaches providing more than one illumination member around the tool element to provide adequate illumination of the working area without any shadowing [see paragraph 0031]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second illumination member, as taught by Mittmann, in order to prevent shadowing of the working area.
In reference to claim 5, Asakura further discloses the tool comprises a guide member (42)configured to wind the wire around the rebar, wherein the main body housing (4) comprises a guide member holding part that holds the guide member [see figure 3]. The combination further discloses the first illumination member and the second illumination member are disposed on the guide member holding part.
In reference to claim 6, Asakura discloses a rotor of the twisting motor is rotatable about a central axis which extends in a front-rear direction, as seen in figure 2. The combination further discloses when viewing the rebar tying tool in the front-rear direction, the guide member is disposed between the first nad second illumination members in a left-right direction, which is orthogonal to the front-rear direction [given the teaching of Mittmann that the illumination members are position around the tools, the illumination members would be placed on the flat surfaces adjacent to the guide members to illuminate the working area].
In reference to claim 7, the combination further discloses when viewing the rebar tying tool in a front-rear direction, the twisting member is disposed between the first and second illumination members in a left-right direction, which is orthogonal to the front-rear direction [given the teaching of Mittmann that the illumination members are position around the tools, the illumination members would be placed on the flat surfaces adjacent to the guide members to illuminate the working area thereby the twisting member would be positioned between the first and second illumination members].
In reference to claim 8, the first illumination member and the second illumination member are capable of being spaced apart by a distance that is larger than the diameter of the rebars.
In reference to claims 9 and 10, the combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the luminous flux of the light emitted by the illumination member is between 1 lumen and 10,000 lumens and the luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the illumination member emit a luminous flux of between 1 to 10,000 lumens with a luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member, since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination member to emit a luminous flux of between 1 and 10,000 lumens with a luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member for the purpose of providing sufficient lighting to the working area.
In reference to claim 11, Mittmann further teaches the illumination member comprises a light-emitting part (lamp), which emits light, and a diffusion part, which diffuses the light emitted by the light-emitting part [see paragraph 0035].
In reference to claim 12, Asakura further discloses a control unit (38) configured to control driving of the twisting motor )96). The combination further discloses a lead line electrically connecting the first illumination member with the control unit, wherein the main-body housing comprises a grip part (16) configured to be gripped by a user when the use is using the rebar tying tool, and the lead line passes through the interior of the grip part [Asakura discloses the control unit 38 controls all functions of the tool, therefore it would be obvious that the control unit would control the illumination member and be connected thereto, given the placement of the control unit below the grip part, the lead line would inherently pass through the grip part to reach the control unit].
In reference to claim 13, Asakura further discloses a feed motor (50) configured to drive a feed member that feeds the wire [see paragraph 0048], and a control unit (38) configured to control driving the twisting motor and the feed motor [see paragraph 0047], the main-body housing comprises a feed motor housing part, which houses the feed motor [see figure 2]. The combination further discloses a lead line electrically connecting the first illumination member with the control unit, wherein the lead line passes through the interior of the feed motor housing part [Asakura discloses the control unit 38 controls all functions of the tool, therefore it would be obvious that the control unit would control the illumination member and be connected thereto, given the placement of the control unit, the lead line would inherently pass through the feed motor housing part to reach the control unit].
In reference to claim 14, Asakura further discloses a control unit (38) to drive the twisting motor and execute a tying process for tying the wire around the two or more rebars. The combination further discloses the control unit is configured to actuate the first illumination member and be programmed to cause the first illumination member to emit light prior to executing the tying process.
In reference to claim 15, Mittmann further teaches a first illumination range of light from the first illumination member partially crosses a second illumination range of light from the second illumination member, such that shadows on a surface located on an opposite side of the working area from the tool are avoided [see paragraph 0033], and further teaches the illumination member comprises a light-emitting part (lamp), which emits light, and a diffusion part, which diffuses the light emitted by the light-emitting part [see paragraph 0035].
The combination further discloses when viewing the rebar tying tool in a front-rear direction, the twisting member is disposed between the first and second illumination members in a left-right direction, which is orthogonal to the front-rear direction [given the teaching of Mittmann that the illumination members are position around the tools, the illumination members would be placed on the flat surfaces adjacent to the guide members to illuminate the working area thereby the twisting member would be positioned between the first and second illumination members. The first illumination member and the second illumination member are capable of being spaced apart by a distance that is larger than the diameter of the rebars.
The combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the luminous flux of the light emitted by the illumination member is between 1 lumen and 10,000 lumens and the luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the illumination member emit a luminous flux of between 1 to 10,000 lumens with a luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member, since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination member to emit a luminous flux of between 1 and 10,000 lumens with a luminous flux intensity is between 70 and 3,000 lux at a distance of less than 150mm from the illumination member for the purpose of providing sufficient lighting to the working area.
In reference to claim 16, Asakura further discloses a feed motor (50) configured to drive a feed member that feeds the wire [see paragraph 0048], and a control unit (38) configured to control driving the twisting motor and the feed motor [see paragraph 0047], the main-body housing comprises a feed motor housing part, which houses the feed motor [see figure 2]. The combination further discloses a lead line electrically connecting the first illumination member with the control unit, wherein the lead line passes through the interior of the feed motor housing part [Asakura discloses the control unit 38 controls all functions of the tool, therefore it would be obvious that the control unit would control the illumination member and be connected thereto, given the placement of the control unit, the lead line would inherently pass through the feed motor housing part to reach the control unit].
In reference to claim 17, Asakura discloses a method for tying rebar using a wire, comprising the step of actuating the rebar tying tool to twist the wire, which has been wound around the rebars.
Asakura disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a light is emitted from the rebar tying tool toward the rebars.
However, Mittmann teaches a hand tool with a light for illuminating the workspace wherein lights are mounted on the housing (11) for the purpose of providing illumination to the work area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator [see paragraphs 0031, 0038; figure 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of Asakura to include an illumination member, as taught by Mittmann, in order to improve the tool by shining a light onto the working area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator.
In reference to claim 18, Asakura discloses a method of tying a wire around two or more rebars using a rebar tying tool, wherein the rebar tying tool comprises
a twisting motor (96) configured to drive a twisting member that twists the wire, which has been wound around that wo or more rebars,
a trigger (24) configured to be manipulated by a user to actuate the twisting motor, and
a control unit (38) configured to control and actuate all elements of the rebar tying tool,
the method comprising
driving the twisting motor in response to manipulation of the trigger by the user to twist the wire and fasten the wire to the two or more rebars.
Asakura discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a first illumination member is provided to shine light toward the rebars.
However, Mittmann teaches a hand tool with a light for illuminating the workspace wherein lights are mounted on the housing (11) for the purpose of providing illumination to the work area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator [see paragraphs 0031, 0038; figure 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of Asakura to include an illumination member, as taught by Mittmann, in order to improve the tool by shining a light onto the working area of the tool without additional intervention by the operator.
In reference to claim 19, the combination further discloses the first illumination member comprises a transmissive part, through which the light is transmitted from the interior of the first illumination member to the exterior of the first illumination member [see paragraph 0035], and a longest dimension of the transmissive part is capable of being larger than the diameters of the two or more rebars.
In reference to claim 20, Mittmann further teaches providing more than one illumination member around the tool element to provide adequate illumination of the working area without any shadowing [see paragraph 0031]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second illumination member, as taught by Mittmann, in order to prevent shadowing of the working area. The combination further discloses the first illumination member and the second illumination member are capable of being spaced apart by a distance that is larger than the diameter of the rebars.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0036482 to Vanko et al discloses a lighted power tool and US 2017/0113335 to Taullaj discloses a lighted hand tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights