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 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:
~ “a clutch mechanism that is configured to be actuated in response to a forward movement of the main shaft being obstructed due to the cone abutting the end portion of the pipe” in claim 1 the term “clutch mechanism” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to be actuated”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found §[0070]-§[0085] of specification. Therefore, “a clutch mechanism” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
~ “a detection device that is configured to detect actuation of the clutch mechanism” in claim 1 the term “detection device” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to detect”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in §[0095] of specification “More specifically, the detection device 81 according to the present embodiment is a Hall sensor including a Hall element”. Therefore, “detection device” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
~ “a control device that is configured to control rotation of the motor based on a detection result of the detection device” in claim 1 the term “control device” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to control rotation”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in §[0102] of specification “The controller 20 is electrically connected to the motor 21, the switch 153, the operation portion 25, and the detection device 81 inside the tool housing 11. In the present embodiment, the controller 20 is configured by a microcomputer including a CPU 201, a ROM 202, a RAM 203, and the like. However, in another embodiment, the controller 20 may be configured by another type of at least one processor or processing circuit (an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), for example) and at least one memory”. Therefore, “control device” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
~ “an operation portion configured to be manually operated by a user” in claim 11 the term “operation portion” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to be operated”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in §[104]-§[105] of specification “The operation portion 25 according to the present embodiment is an input device to which the user can input information relating to a timing of stopping the driving of the motor 21 after the clutch mechanism 7 has operated (hereinafter simply referred to as stop timing information). The present embodiment employs, as the stop timing information, information that identifies an amount/angle (hereinafter referred to as a target rotation amount) by which the motor 21 will be rotated during a period after the clutch mechanism 7 has been actuated to when the driving of the motor 21 is stopped. In the present embodiment, the controller 20 uses pulse width modulation (PWM) control for the drive control of the motor 21, and the target rotation amount is identified by a number of pulses used for driving the motor 21. Thus, the target rotation amount can also be said to be a target pulse number. The operation portion 25 can be embodied as shown in FIG. 10, for example. In this example, the operation portion 25 includes a mode switching button 251, an increase button 253, a decrease button 254, and a display portion 257. Note that the mode switching button 251, the increase button 253, and the decrease button 254 are push buttons. The display portion 257 includes two seven-segment displays that can display numerical digits.”. Therefore, “operation portion” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
~ “a movable clutch member configured to move in response to the forward movement of the main shaft being obstructed” in claim 7 the term “movable clutch member” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to move”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in §[0136] of specification “The movable flange 73 with the clutch pins 734 is an example of a “movable clutch member””. Therefore, “movable clutch member” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 103
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 1- 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwayama et al. (JP 2003126931 A) in view of Jia et al. (CN 115213857 A).
In Re Claim1, Niwayama disclose a flaring tool comprising: a motor (fig.1, 32) that is rotatable in a forward direction and a reverse direction (fig.1, 50, forward/reverse switch); a main shaft (fig.1, 34) that is (i) operably coupled to the motor (fig.1, shows motor is connected to the shaft), and (ii) configured to move forward along a first axis (fig.1, shaft axis), which defines a front-rear direction of the flaring tool, while rotating around the first axis when the motor is rotated in the forward direction; a cone (fig.1, 36) that is (i) eccentrically (fig.1, shows cone is eccentric) supported at a front end portion of the main shaft (fig.1, 34) to be rotatable around a second axis (fig.1, axis of the cone shaft) that is different from the first axis, and (ii) configured to form a flare in an end portion of a pipe (fig.1, 37); a clutch mechanism (fig.1, 39) that is configured to be actuated in response to a forward movement of the main shaft being obstructed due to the cone abutting the end portion of the pipe (page5, para9-10, explains disengagement of clutch and free rotation of main shaft, see attached translation);
Niwayama is silent about a detection device that is configured to detect actuation of the clutch mechanism; and a control device that is configured to control rotation of the motor based on a detection result of the detection device.
However, Jia et al. teaches a detection device (fig.2; 5, 6) that is configured to detect actuation of the clutch mechanism (fig.2; 1); and a control device (fig.2; 9) that is configured to control rotation of the motor based on a detection result of the detection device (page6, para2,3, teaches forward and backward rotation based on detection device 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama and include the detection device and a control device from Jia et al. for the purpose of determining torque value and judge the rotation of shaft (page8, para 4, see attached translation).
In re claim2, which depends on claim1: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim1. Jia further teaches the control device (fig.2; 9) is configured to stop the rotation of the motor after rotating the motor by a specified rotation amount in the forward direction, in response to the actuation of the clutch mechanism being detected by the detection device (page7, last two lines, explains automatic stopping of motor using clutch torque, see attached translation).
In re claim3, which depends on claim2: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim2. Jia further teaches the specified rotation amount is changeable (page5,lines 24-25, teaches a preset torque setting capability, note that specified rotation can be achieved by preset torque setting which is controlled by current, see page7, para2, see attached translation).
In re claim4, which depends on claim3: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim3. Niwayama further discloses that an operation portion configured to be manually operated by a user (fig.1, manual switch 50, switch is pressed manually for motor rotation, also see page5, para6) and Jia further teaches the control device (fig.2, 9) is configured (page7, para7, teaches configuring the control device) to change the specified rotation amount (page7, para5, teaches speed and torque control) in response to a manual operation (page7, para7, teaches manually adjusting speed, reversing, position and negative rotation adjusting mode can be achieved with manual switches 7, 8) performed on the operation portion by the user.
In re claim6, which depends on claim1: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim1.
Niwayama is silent about a brushless motor.
However, Jia further teaches that the motor is a brushless motor (page2, line10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama and include a brushless motor from Jia for the purpose of adjusting rotating speed with different duty ratio (page2, lines14-16). Also, note that brushless motor is well known in the art for high power to weight ratio, high speed, instantaneous control of speed and torque, high efficiency, low maintenance, etc.
In re claim7, which depends on claim1: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim1. Jia further teaches that the clutch mechanism includes a movable clutch member (fig.2, 11, referred as gasket) configured to move in response to the forward movement of the main shaft (fig.2, 13) being moved forward, and the detection device is a Hall sensor (fig.2, 6) configured to detect a magnet (fig.2, 5) attached to the movable clutch member (fig.2, 11, referred as gasket).
In re claim8, which depends on claim7: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim7. Jia further teaches the magnet (fig.2; 5) is attached to non-rotating portion of the movable clutch member (fig.2; 11, referred as gasket, it moves back and forth).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwayama et al. in view of Jia et al. as applied to claim2 above, and further in view of Jiang (US 20220176437 A1).
In re claim5, which depends on claim2: Niwayama in view of Jia discloses the flaring tool according to claim2. Jia further teaches the control device (fig.2, 9) is configured to stop the motor (page5, last para, based on magnetic switch feedback, control device 9 stops power device 3).
Both Niwayama and Jia are silent about the control device is configured to move the main shaft rearward by rotating the motor in the reverse direction.
However, Jiang teaches a control device (fig.13, 301, referred as single chip microcontroller) is configured to move the main shaft rearward by rotating the motor in the reverse direction (page 10, col2, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama in view of Jia, and include a step of reversing the motor rotation from Jiang for the purpose of retreating the main shaft to the initial position (Jiang, §[0064]).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwayama et al. (JP 2003126931 A) in view of Jia et al. (CN 115213857 A) and Jiang (US 20220176437 A1).
In re claim 9, Niwayama discloses a flaring tool, comprising: a motor (fig.1, 32) that is rotatable in a forward direction and a reverse direction (fig.1, 50, forward/reverse switch); a main shaft (fig.1, 34) that is (i) operably coupled to the motor (fig.1, shows motor is connected to the shaft), and (ii) configured to move forward along a first axis (fig.1, shaft axis), which defines a front-rear direction of the flaring tool, while rotating around the first axis when the motor is rotated in the forward direction; a cone (fig.1, 36) that is (i) eccentrically (fig.1, shows cone is eccentric) supported at a front end portion of the main shaft (fig.1, 34) to be rotatable around a second axis (fig.1, axis of the cone shaft) that is different from the first axis, and (ii) configured to form a flare in an end portion of a pipe (fig.1, 37);
Niwayama is silent about a detection device that is configured to detect forming of the flare by the cone; and a control device that is configured to control rotation of the motor, wherein the control device controls the rotation of the motor such that the main shaft rotates by a specified rotation amount at substantially the same position in the front-rear direction and stops rotation thereafter, in response to the forming of the flare being detected by the detection device.
However, Jia teaches a control device (fig.2; 9) that is configured to control rotation of the motor, wherein the control device (fig.2; 9) controls the rotation of the motor such that the main shaft rotates by a specified rotation amount at substantially the same position in the front-rear direction (page6, para2,3, teaches forward and backward rotation based on detection device 5, 6) and stops rotation thereafter (page5, last para, based on magnetic switch feedback, control device 9 stops power device 3).
Both Niwayama and Jia are silent about detecting forming of the flare by the cone, in response to the forming of the flare being detected by the detection device.
However, Jiang teaches detecting forming of the flare by the cone (§[0063], J3, J4, uses switches to detect flare forming), in response to the forming of the flare being detected by the detection device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama and include control device (fig.2, 9) and the detection device (magnetic switch) from Jia and combine Niwayama and Jia using the step of detecting cone forming from Jiang for the purpose of controlling rotation, stopping motor (Jia, page5, last para, based on magnetic switch feedback, control device 9 stops power device 3) and determining expanded copper pipe dimension (Jiang, §[0064], page10, col2, line6, teaches expanded copper pipe reaching a qualified dimension).
In re claim10, which depends on claim9: Niwayama in view of Jia and Jiang discloses the flaring tool according to claim9. Jia further teaches the specified rotation amount is changeable (page5,lines 24-25, teaches a preset torque setting capability, note that specified rotation can be achieved by preset torque setting which is controlled by current, see page7, para2, see attached translation).
In re claim11, which depends on claim10: Niwayama in view of Jia and Jiang discloses the flaring tool according to claim10. Niwayama further discloses that an operation portion configured to be manually operated by a user (fig.1, manual switch 50, switch is pressed manually for motor rotation, also see page5, para6) and Jia further teaches the control device (fig.2, 9) is configured (page7, para7, teaches configuring the control device) to change the specified rotation amount (page7, para5, teaches speed and torque control) in response to a manual operation (page7, para7, teaches manually adjusting speed, reversing, position and negative rotation adjusting mode can be achieved with manual switches 7, 8) performed on the operation portion by the user.
In re claim12, which depends on claim9: Niwayama in view of Jia and Jiang discloses the flaring tool according to claim9.
Both Niwayama and Jia are silent about the control device is configured to move the main shaft rearward by rotating the motor in the reverse direction after stopping the motor.
However, Jiang teaches the control device (fig.13, 301, referred as single chip microcontroller) is configured to move the main shaft rearward by rotating the motor in the reverse direction after stopping the motor (page 10, col2, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama in view of Jia and include a reversing the motor rotation for the purpose of retreating the main shaft to the initial position (§[0064]).
In re claim13, which depends on claim9: Niwayama in view of Jia and Jiang discloses the flaring tool according to claim9.
Niwayama is silent about a brushless motor.
However, Jia teaches that the motor is a brushless motor (page2, line10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flaring tool of Niwayama and include a brushless motor from Jia for the purpose of adjusting rotating speed with different duty ratio (page2, lines14-16). Also, note that brushless motor is well known in the art for high power to weight ratio, high speed, instantaneous control of speed and torque, high efficiency, low maintenance, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (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 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.
/M.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
