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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 14 October 2025.
Claims 21 – 25, 27 – 30, 32 – 36, and 38 – 42 are pending. Claims 1 – 20, 26, 31, and 37 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21 – 25, 27 – 30, and 41 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation, “perform an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition”, fails to comply with the written description requirement because the limitation, amended to the claims after the filing of the original disclosure, constitutes new matter. Paragraph [0047] describes an embodiment wherein the motion sensor 615 detects a fall, and then controls the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing. The specification also describes other embodiments having other operations to orient an attachment of the power tool. For example, paragraph [0048] describes an embodiment wherein the device 100 utilizes an external cushion (e.g., an airbag, a parachute, etc.) to lessen or absorb an impact on the device 100 when dropped, and paragraph [0049] describes an embodiment wherein the device 100 utilizes an external cushion (e.g., an airbag, a parachute, etc.) to lessen or absorb an impact on the device 100 when dropped. However, the specification does not specify that embodiments can be combined or specify an embodiment that has the motion sensor 615 detecting a fall, and then controlling the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 and have more than one operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition. Please note, since claims 22 – 25, 27, and 41 – 42 depend upon claim 21, claims 22 – 25, 27, and 41 – 42 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation, “performing an operation separate from the controlling of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition”, fails to comply with the written description requirement because the limitation, amended to the claims after the filing of the original disclosure, constitutes new matter. Paragraph [0047] describes an embodiment wherein the motion sensor 615 detects a fall, and then controls the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing. The specification also describes other embodiments having other operations to orient an attachment of the power tool. For example, paragraph [0048] describes an embodiment wherein the device 100 utilizes an external cushion (e.g., an airbag, a parachute, etc.) to lessen or absorb an impact on the device 100 when dropped, and paragraph [0049] describes an embodiment wherein the device 100 utilizes an external cushion (e.g., an airbag, a parachute, etc.) to lessen or absorb an impact on the device 100 when dropped. However, the specification does not specify that embodiments can be combined or specify an embodiment that has the motion sensor 615 detecting a fall, and then controlling the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 and have more than one operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition. Please note, since claims 29 – 30 depend upon claim 28, claims 29 – 30 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation, “to perform the operation separate from the control of the motor, the controller is configured to close a guard of the power tool.”, fails to comply with the written description requirement because the limitation, amended to the claims after the filing of the original disclosure, constitutes new matter. Paragraph [0047] describes an embodiment wherein the motion sensor 615 detects a fall, and then controls the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing. Paragraph [0052] describes another embodiment wherein the device 100 with a guard wherein the device 100 releases the guard from the device in an event of a fall. However, the specification does not specify that embodiments can be combined or specify an embodiment having both the motion sensor 615 detecting a fall and then controlling the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing, as described paragraph [0047], and a guard wherein the device 100 releases the guard from the device in an event of a fall, as described in paragraph [0054].
Regarding claim 42, the limitation, “to perform the operation separate from the control of the motor, the controller is configured to close a guard of the power tool.”, fails to comply with the written description requirement because the limitation, amended to the claims after the filing of the original disclosure, constitutes new matter. Paragraph [0047] describes an embodiment wherein the motion sensor 615 detects a fall, and then controls the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing. Paragraph [0054] describes another embodiment wherein the device 100 minimizes force and potential damage from a fall to the device 100 or a user by disengaging a drive train. However, the specification does not specify that embodiments can be combined or specify an embodiment having both the motion sensor 615 detecting a fall and then controlling the motor 210 to orientate the device 100 to minimize the severity of contact upon landing, as described paragraph [0047], and the device 100 minimizing force and potential damage from a fall to the device 100 or a user by disengaging a drive train, as described in paragraph [0054].
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 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.
Claims 21, 23 – 25, 27 – 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal (US 11 740 146 B2) in view of Rothkopf (US 9 342 108 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Goyal discloses a power tool (1, 2, fig. 1) comprising:
a motor (Col. 3, ll. 41 – 43 describes a handheld power tool 2 comprising an electric motor) configured to produce an output (Col. 3, ll. 47 – 52 describes the electric motor producing torque to a tool held by the tool holding device 4);
a sensor (10, fig. 1) configured to measure an acceleration of the power tool and generate an output signal related to the acceleration of a power tool (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 19 describes an acceleration sensor 10 configured to record and measure acceleration values in a X, Y, and Z direction of a system 1 and transferring these acceleration values to a controlling device 9); and
a controller (9, fig. 1) electrically connected to the motor and the sensor, the controller configured to:
receive the output signal related to the acceleration of the power tool (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 19 describes an acceleration sensor 10 configured to record and measure acceleration values in a X, Y, and Z direction of a system 1 and transferring these acceleration values to a controlling device 9),
compare the acceleration of the power tool to a free-fall acceleration threshold (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 22 describes when the system 1 experiences the acceleration value of about zero in X, Y, and Z direction, the system 1 is in free fall wherein the acceleration value of about zero is the claimed, “a free-fall acceleration threshold”), and
detect a free-fall condition of the power tool based on the comparison of the acceleration of the power tool to the free-fall acceleration threshold (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 22 describes when the acceleration value of about zero in X, Y, and Z direction is detected, the system 1 is in free fall wherein col. 6, ll. 40 – 43 describes the controlling device 9 detecting this free-fall condition and starting the clock within the controlling device 9).
Goyal does not explicitly disclose monitoring a rotation of the power tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, and controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the power tool during the free-fall condition.
However, Rothkopf, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a controller (124, fig. 3) monitoring a rotation of a tool (100, fig. 1) using a sensor (116, fig. 3) in response to detecting a free-fall condition (Col. 7, ll. 55 – 64 describes a processor 124 controlling operation of the tool 100 based on input of sensors 116 and controlling a protective mechanism 112 of the tool 100. Col. 8, ll. 32 – 43 describes a fall detected by the sensors 116. Col. 9, ll. 23 – 29 describes in order to estimate the impact area of the tool during the fall, the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is taken into account implying the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is monitored. Please note, col. 13, ll. 14 – 38 describes methods of calculating/determining the angular momentum/rotation by the tool 100), controlling a motor (314, fig. 5A) to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition (Col. 12, l. 34 – col. 13, l. 2 describes a motor 314 driving a mass 318 wherein during a fall, the motor 314 rotates the mass 314 to vary the angular momentum or rotation of the tool 100 to alter the tool orientation as the tool is falling so that a less vulnerable portion of the tool impacts the surface at the end of the fall) (With the incorporation of the teachings of Rothkopf with the invention of Goyal, the controller 9 of Goyal would monitor the rotation of the power tool using the sensor 10 of Goyal in response to detecting the free-fall condition, as taught in Rothkopf, and then control the electric motor of Goyal to alter the rotation of the power tool during the free-fall condition, again as taught by Rothkopf), and perform an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition (Col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes a thrust mechanism 318 used to stop a device's descent and set it down slowly wherein there can be one dedicated aperture and direction, allowing the angular momentum of the device to be changed along one axis. Furthermore, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the use of the thrust mechanism 318 in this manner may be in combination with one or more other angular momentum varying techniques, such as the motor 314 driving the mass 318 as described in col. 12, l. 34 – col. 13, l. 2. As such, the device may be configured to alter the orientation of the device during freefall via one or more of the other techniques described herein and the thrust mechanism 318 may engage immediately before impact to achieve a soft landing. Please note, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the thrust mechanism 318 as a gas 818 stored under pressure so that as it is released from the canister 814 provide a force or thrust for the device 100 wherein the examiner deems such a force capable of controlling the rotation of the device).
Rothkopf is evidence that having the controller monitoring the rotation of the tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition was within the skill on one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the power tool and controller of Goyal with the controller monitoring the rotation of the power tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition, as taught by Rothkopf. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the power tool and controller of Goyal with the controller monitoring the rotation of the power tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition, as taught by Rothkopf, with the motivation to alter the power tool orientation as the power tool is falling so that a less vulnerable portion of the power tool impacts the surface at the end of the fall and achieve a soft landing.
Regarding claim 23, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Goyal discloses the controller (Rothkopf – 124, fig. 3) is further configured to monitor an angular momentum of the power tool (Rothkopf – Col. 9, ll. 23 – 29 describes in order to estimate the impact area of the tool during the fall, the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is taken into account implying the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is monitored. Please note, col. 13, ll. 14 – 38 describes methods of calculating/determining the angular momentum/rotation by the tool 100).
Regarding claim 24, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Goyal discloses when altering the rotation of the power tool, the controller (Rothkopf – 124, fig. 3) is configured to and reduce power to the motor (Rothkopf – Col. 22, ll. 28 – 62 describes a feedback loop during a freefall wherein a kinematic calculator using input gyroscopic or kinematic data determines the orientation of the tool and drives the motor to re-orient the tool to achieve a non-damaging impact. This kinematic calculator is repeatedly checked during the freefall and drives the motor to either stop rotation, reverse rotation or accelerate rotation of the device to ensure the orientation of the tool is correct so that a safe zone of the tool will make impact. Thus, in certain instances, this kinematic calculator/controller powers stops rotation of the motor when the tool reaches a preferred orientation).
Regarding claim 25, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Goyal discloses the controller (Rothkopf – 124, fig. 3) is further configured to minimize the rotation of the power tool when the power tool reaches a preferred orientation (Rothkopf – Col. 22, ll. 28 – 62 describes a feedback loop during a freefall wherein a kinematic calculator using input gyroscopic or kinematic data determines the orientation of the tool and drives the motor to re-orient the tool to achieve a non-damaging impact. This kinematic calculator is repeatedly checked during the freefall and drives the motor to either stop rotation, reverse rotation or accelerate rotation of the device to ensure the orientation of the tool is correct so that a safe zone of the tool will make impact. Thus, in certain instances, this kinematic calculator/controller stops rotation of the motor when the tool reaches a preferred orientation).
Regarding claim 27, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Goyal discloses the controller (Rothkopf – 124, fig. 3) is further configured to orient the power tool to minimize damage to the power tool after the free-fall condition (Rothkopf – Col. 22, ll. 28 – 62 describes a feedback loop during a freefall wherein a kinematic calculator using input gyroscopic or kinematic data determines the orientation of the tool and drives the motor to re-orient the tool to achieve a non-damaging impact. This kinematic calculator is repeatedly checked during the freefall and drives the motor to either stop rotation, reverse rotation or accelerate rotation of the device to ensure the orientation of the tool is correct so that a safe zone of the tool will make impact. Thus, in certain instances, this kinematic calculator/controller stops rotation of the motor when the tool reaches a preferred orientation).
Regarding claim 28, Goyal discloses a method for drop detection of a power tool, the method comprising:
generating, using a sensor (10, fig. 1), an output signal related to an acceleration of the power tool (1, 2, fig. 1) (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 19 describes an acceleration sensor 10 configured to record and measure acceleration values in a X, Y, and Z direction of a system 1 and transferring these acceleration values to a controlling device 9);
receiving, using a controller (9, fig. 1), the output signal related to the acceleration of the power tool (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 19 describes an acceleration sensor 10 configured to record and measure acceleration values in a X, Y, and Z direction of a system 1 and transferring these acceleration values to a controlling device 9);
comparing, using the controller, the acceleration of the power tool to a free-fall acceleration threshold (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 22 describes when the system 1 experiences the acceleration value of about zero in X, Y, and Z direction, the system 1 is in free fall wherein the acceleration value of about zero is the claimed, “a free-fall acceleration threshold”); and
detecting a free-fall condition of the power tool based on the comparison of the acceleration of the power tool to the free-fall acceleration threshold (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 22 describes when the acceleration value of about zero in X, Y, and Z direction is detected, the system 1 is in free fall wherein col. 6, ll. 40 – 43 describes the controlling device 9 detecting this free-fall condition and starting the clock within the controlling device 9).
Goyal does not explicitly disclose monitoring, using the sensor, a rotation of the power tool in response to detecting the free-fall condition; and controlling a motor to alter the rotation of the power tool during the free-fall condition.
However, Rothkopf, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches monitoring a rotation of a tool using a sensor in response to detecting a free-fall condition (Col. 7, ll. 55 – 64 describes a processor 124 controlling operation of the tool 100 based on input of sensors 116 and controlling a protective mechanism 112 of the tool 100. Col. 8, ll. 32 – 43 describes a fall detected by the sensors 116. Col. 9, ll. 23 – 29 describes in order to estimate the impact area of the tool during the fall, the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is taken into account implying the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is monitored), and controlling a motor (314, fig. 5A) to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition (Col. 12, l. 34 – col. 13, l. 2 describes a motor 314 driving a mass 318 wherein during a fall, the motor 314 rotates the mass 314 to vary the angular momentum or rotation of the tool 100 to alter the tool orientation as the tool is falling so that a less vulnerable portion of the tool impacts the surface at the end of the fall) (With the incorporation of the teachings of Rothkopf with the invention of Goyal, the controller 9 of Goyal would monitor the rotation of the power tool using the sensor 10 of Goyal in response to detecting the free-fall condition, as taught in Rothkopf, and then control the electric motor of Goyal to alter the rotation of the power tool during the free-fall condition, again as taught by Rothkopf) (With the incorporation of the teachings of Rothkopf with the invention of Goyal, the controller 9 of Goyal would monitor the rotation of the power tool using the sensor 10 of Goyal in response to detecting the free-fall condition, as taught in Rothkopf, and then control the electric motor of Goyal to alter the rotation of the power tool during the free-fall condition, again as taught by Rothkopf), and performing an operation separate from controlling the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition (Col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes a thrust mechanism 318 used to stop a device's descent and set it down slowly wherein there can be one dedicated aperture and direction, allowing the angular momentum of the device to be changed along one axis. Furthermore, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the use of the thrust mechanism 318 in this manner may be in combination with one or more other angular momentum varying techniques, such as the motor 314 driving the mass 318 as described in col. 12, l. 34 – col. 13, l. 2. As such, the device may be configured to alter the orientation of the device during freefall via one or more of the other techniques described herein and the thrust mechanism 318 may engage immediately before impact to achieve a soft landing. Please note, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the thrust mechanism 318 as a gas 818 stored under pressure so that as it is released from the canister 814 provide a force or thrust for the device 100 wherein the examiner deems such a force capable of controlling the rotation of the device).
Rothkopf is evidence that having the controller monitoring the rotation of the tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition was within the skill on one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the power tool and controller of Goyal with the controller monitoring the rotation of the power tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition, as taught by Rothkopf. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the power tool and controller of Goyal with the controller monitoring the rotation of the power tool using the sensor in response to detecting the free-fall condition, controlling the motor to alter the rotation of the tool during the free-fall condition, and performing an operation separate from the control of the motor to orient an attachment of the power tool to be in a least exposed position during the free-fall condition, as taught by Rothkopf, with the motivation to alter the power tool orientation as the power tool is falling so that a less vulnerable portion of the power tool impacts the surface at the end of the fall and achieve a soft landing.
Regarding claim 30, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 28.
The modified Goyal discloses monitoring an angular momentum of the power tool (Rothkopf – Col. 9, ll. 23 – 29 describes in order to estimate the impact area of the tool during the fall, the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is taken into account implying the angular momentum or rotation of the tool is monitored. Please note, col. 13, ll. 14 – 38 describes methods of calculating/determining the angular momentum/rotation by the tool 100).
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal (US 11 740 146 B2), in view of Rothkopf (US 9 342 108 B2), in further view of Roser (US 2012/0279742 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Goyal does not explicitly disclose the controller is further configured to monitor an inertia of the power tool.
However, Roser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an inertia sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the power tool and generate an output signal related to the acceleration of a power tool ([0005] describes an inertial sensor unit for detecting at least one acceleration component of the power tool wherein [0036] describes an electronics unit 200 monitoring this inertia sensor unit 130).
Roser is evidence that having the inertia sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the power tool wherein the controller monitors this inertia sensor was within the skill on one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Please note, both the inertia sensor of Roser and the acceleration sensor of Goyal detect an acceleration and are used in both Roser and Goyal for the same purpose, the inertia sensor of Roser and the acceleration sensor of Goyal are functional equivalents. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the inertia sensor of Roser in place of the acceleration sensor of Goyal to achieve the predictable result of measuring an acceleration of the power tool.
Regarding claim 29, Goyal, as modified by Rothkopf, discloses the invention as recited in claim 28.
The modified Goyal does not explicitly disclose the controller is further configured to monitor an inertia of the power tool.
However, Roser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an inertia sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the power tool and generate an output signal related to the acceleration of a power tool ([0005] describes an inertial sensor unit for detecting at least one acceleration component of the power tool wherein [0036] describes an electronics unit 200 monitoring this inertia sensor unit 130).
Roser is evidence that having the inertia sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the power tool wherein the controller monitors this inertia sensor was within the skill on one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Please note, both the inertia sensor of Roser and the acceleration sensor of Goyal detect an acceleration and are used in both Roser and Goyal for the same purpose, the inertia sensor of Roser and the acceleration sensor of Goyal are functional equivalents. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the inertia sensor of Roser in place of the acceleration sensor of Goyal to achieve the predictable result of measuring an acceleration of the power tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 – 36 and 38 – 40 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 32: the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 33 – 36 and 38 – 40 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 32.
Claim 32 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 32, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 32 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“provide a user with an instruction on the component that has been damaged, wherein the instruction is provided to the user in an application.”
The closest prior art is Goyal (US 11,740,146 B2) in view of Girt (US 2020/0133229 A1). Girt teaches a power tool generating a diagnostic assessment based on the differences between a generated data signature and a stored data signature that may indicate damage; however, the reference is silent regarding how the diagnostic assessment is accessed by the user. Additionally, the prior art of record did not anticipate or make obvious the limitation. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at Applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 31 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 21 – 31 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Rothkopf only discloses controlling the motor 304 to control the rotation of the device. Rothkopf does not disclose any other control operations that can be performed in order to control the rotation of the device.
In response to applicant’s arguments, Rothkopf teaches the limitation. Rothkopf, in col. 18, ll. 30 – 58, describes a thrust mechanism 318 used to stop a device's descent and set it down slowly wherein there can be one dedicated aperture and direction, allowing the angular momentum of the device to be changed along one axis. Furthermore, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the use of the thrust mechanism 318 in this manner may be in combination with one or more other angular momentum varying techniques, such as the motor 314 driving the mass 318 as described in col. 12, l. 34 – col. 13, l. 2. As such, the device may be configured to alter the orientation of the device during freefall via one or more of the other techniques described herein and the thrust mechanism 318 may engage immediately before impact to achieve a soft landing. Please note, col. 18, ll. 30 – 58 describes the thrust mechanism 318 as a gas 818 stored under pressure so that as it is released from the canister 814 provide a force or thrust for the device 100 wherein the examiner deems such a force capable of controlling the rotation of the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
24 January 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731