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 responsive to claims filed on 01/28/2026.
Claims 1, and 4-24 are currently pending in this office action.
Cancellation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged.
Addition of claims 21-24 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbot et al. (US 20210229258 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 20110073335 A1), and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20080110653 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Abbot discloses method of using a power tool (102a) having a gyro sensor module (345, 350) having at least one gyro sensor (Para [0053] “the sensors 345 and 350 may include one or more accelerometers, gyroscopes…”) mounted to a housing (Fig. 3) configured to detect angular rotation of the housing about a first axis (Para Abstract, [0023], [0050]-[0055], and [0063]-[0070]; “signals from the movement sensor 350 may indicate the angular velocity at which the housing of the power tool 102a rotates about its rotational axis”) and angular inclination of the first axis from a reference first axis of the power tool (Para [0051]-[0052], [0068]-[0072]; “roll position”), the method comprising:
powering on the power tool (via switch 212 and motor) and the gyro sensor module (345, 350; and Para [0026], [0044]-[0047]);
calibrating the gyro sensor module (345, 350) and determining the reference first axis for the power tool ([0068]-[0070]);
receiving sensor signals from the gyro sensor module at a controller (305) during operation of the power tool (Para [0043, [0050]-[0057]] ‘The sensors are connected to a circuit configured to process signals from the sensors to determine whether the tool is level, plumb, or perpendicular to the workpiece”);
determining a first error condition (kickback) of the power tool based on a threshold angular velocity being exceeded (Para [0057]-[0066]); and
determining a second error condition of the power tool based on a threshold angular inclination being exceeded (Para [0026], [0068]-[0072]); and
indicating the first error condition and/or the second error condition to a user (Para [0043] “the power tool 102a may include one or more indicators such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to indicate a status of the power tool 102a or a mode of the power tool 102a.” see also [0057] and [0070]).
However, Abbot is silent with regards to providing a base portion mounted to the housing and arranged to be positioned and secured against a workpiece and wherein an argument is made that Trilli doesn’t disclose calibrating the gyro sensor module and determining the reference first axis for the power tool.
Kato in a related invention teaches a power tool unit (10) and providing a base portion (20, 30) mounted to the housing (Figs. 2-3) and arranged to be positioned and secured against a workpiece ([0039]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Abbot power tool by having incorporating a base portion, as suggested by Kato, in order to give the power tool an improved usability and may be a high-value added product ([0020]) because of its versatility and utility.
Furthermore, Zhang in a related invention teaches a power tool unit (10) having the process of calibrating the gyro sensor module and determining the reference first axis for the power tool ([0054]-[0057]; Figs 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Abbot as modified power tool by calibrating the gyro sensor module and determining the reference first axis for the power tool, as suggested by Zhang, in order to remove any offset and compensate for any gains of the rate sensor before determining rotational conditions ([0052]).
Regarding claim 17, further comprising stopping the motor in response to a control signal received from the controller in response to an error condition of the power tool being detected (Abstract, [0057]-[0060], [0063]-[0066], and [0086]-[0091] of Abbot)
Regarding claim 18, further comprising detecting linear acceleration of the housing with respect to the workpiece in a direction parallel to a first axis, a second axis, and/or a third axis using an accelerometer sensor module mounted on the housing ([0053] “the sensors 345 and 350 may include one or more accelerometers, gyroscopes, or magnets that may be separate or integrated into a single assembly. In some embodiments, the sensors 345 and 350 allow for movement of the power tool 102a to be monitored from one to nine axes (e.g., at least one of three axis monitoring, six axis monitoring, and nine axis monitoring)” see also [0049]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the first error condition is a kickback event ([0054]-[0066]) and the second error condition is the power tool being tilted with respect to the workpiece ([0068]-[0072]; Fig. 6-7).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbot et al. (US 20210229258 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 20110073335 A1), and Zhang et al. (US 20080110653 A1), and in further view of Skinner et al. (US 20190232481 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Abbot as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention including determining a first and second error conditions, but is silent regarding a third error condition of the power tool based on a threshold linear acceleration being exceeded.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Skinner. Skinner discloses that it is old and well known to have a power tool configured to determine a third error condition of the power tool based on a threshold linear acceleration being exceeded ([0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Abbot power tool by having incorporating determining a third error condition of the power tool based on a threshold linear acceleration being exceeded, as suggested by Skinner, in order to give the controller of the power tool an improved control.
11. Claims 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbot et al. (US 20210229258 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 20110073335 A1)
Regarding claim 22, A power tool (102a) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2A);
a motor (330) mounted in the housing ([0040]);
a tool holder (210) operatively coupled to the motor (330);
a gyro sensor module mounted on the housing (Para [0053] “the sensors 345 and 350 may include one or more accelerometers, gyroscopes…”), the gyro sensor module comprising at least one gyro sensor (345, 350) configured to detect angular rotation of the housing about a first axis (Para Abstract, [0023], [0050]-[0055], and [0063]-[0070]; “signals from the movement sensor 350 may indicate the angular velocity at which the housing of the power tool 102a rotates about its rotational axis”) and angular inclination of the first axis from a reference first axis (Para [0051]-[0052], [0068]-[0072]; “roll position”); and
a controller (305) configured to receive sensor signals from the gyro sensor module ([0049]-[0052]; Fig. 3), determining a first error condition (kickback) of the power tool based on a threshold angular velocity being exceeded (Para [0057]-[0066]); and determining a second error condition of the power tool based on a threshold angular inclination being exceeded (Para [0026], [0068]-[0072]);.
However, Abbot is silent with regards to a base portion mounted to the housing
Kato in a related invention teaches a power tool unit (10) and providing a base portion (20, 30) mounted to the housing (Figs. 2-3; [0039]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Abbot power tool by having incorporating a base portion, as suggested by Kato, in order to give the power tool an improved usability and may be a high-value added product ([0020]) because of its versatility and utility.
Regarding claim 23, wherein the base portion (20, 30) is adjustably mounted to the housing (Figs. 2-3; [0039]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the base portion (20, 30) has a planar surface securely mounted parallel to a workpiece (Figs. 2-3; [0039]-[0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-15 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 1, the primary reason for allowance is, a controller configured to receive sensor signals from the gyro sensor module, determine a first error condition of the power tool based on a threshold angular velocity being exceeded, and determine a second error condition of the power tool based on a threshold angular inclination being exceeded, wherein the gyro sensor module further comprises a second gyro sensor configured to detect angular rotation of the housing about a second axis and angular inclination of the second axis from a reference second axis, and wherein the gyro sensor module further comprises a third gyro sensor configured to detect angular rotation of the housing about a third axis and angular inclination of the third axis from a reference third axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 16 which is amended have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claim 16, therefore the previous 102 rejection no longer applies. Application of Abbot, Kato, and Zhang is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter of claim 16. Please see the new rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights