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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
Terminal disclaimers were filed on 12/3/2025 by Attorney Amir Rohani.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a trigger/auxiliary trigger mechanism, classified in H02P1/06.
II. Claims 12-18 drawn to an adjustable auxiliary trigger location, classified in B25F 5/026
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as being usable in a trigger system that is not adjustable See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The differing inventions would require different search classes, terms, and search modifiers.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Amir Rohani on 11/18/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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:
Claim 9 – “a frontal mounting member” – this claim limitation will be interpreted according to the drawings and specification, “[0075] In an embodiment, when the side handle 210 is initially mounted on the grinder 10, a notch 218 of the mounting member 216 engages a keying feature 110 of the grinder. It is noted that in this example, the keying feature of 110 extends axially rearward of threaded openings 104 on either side of the gear case 14, though it should be understood that the keying feature 110 may extend forward of the threaded openings 104, as described above, or at any angle or orientation relative to the threaded openings 104. In this position, the knob 128 can be partially rotated to tighten the mounting member 216 to the grinder 10. This ensures that the mounting member 216 is secured and the side handle 210 is properly aligned with the grinder 10. However, in this position, the main gripping body 212 is biased away from the mounting member 216 to maintain a small gap therebetween such that the main gripping body 212 can be rotated relative to the mounting member 216. This allows the user to position the angle of the trigger switch 214 as desired.”.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the utilization of a time threshold between main trigger activation and/or release/reengagement and auxiliary trigger activation renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numata, US 10682753.
Regarding claim 1, Numata discloses: A power tool (Fig. 1, tool 1) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, main body case 11) ;
an electric motor (Fig. 1, motor M) disposed within the housing;
a main trigger switch (Fig. 1, Four start switches SW in total are arranged around the circumferential periphery of the front case 12) mounted on the housing;
a side handle (Fig. 1,front grip 25) mounted on the housing, the side handle having an auxiliary trigger (Fig. 1, tool 1); and
a controller (Fig. 1, controller C) disposed within the housing operable to control a flow of electric current from a power source to the electric motor, wherein the controller is configured to activate the motor at start-up only if the main trigger is actuated after the auxiliary trigger is actuated, and discontinue operation of the motor after start- up if either of the auxiliary trigger or the main trigger is disengaged or if there is a tool fault condition (Col. 5, line 27, “A start control paradigm of the electric power tool 1 is configured such that the electric motor M starts only when any one of the four start switches SW around the front case 12, as well as any one of the two start switches SW on the side of the rear case 13, are simultaneously turned on. Alternatively, the electric motor M starts only when the start switch SW on the front grip 25 as well as any one of the four start switches SW on the side of the front case 12, or any one of the two start switches SW on the side of the rear case 13, are turned on in a simultaneous manner. The electric motor M will not start when only one of the seven switches SW is turned on. Furthermore, the electric motor M will not start when two start switches SW only on around the front case 12 are simultaneously turned on, or when two start switches SW only around the rear case 13 are simultaneously turned on. The electric motor M will start only when two switches SW separately disposed in the front-to-rear direction are simultaneously turned on, where said switches are selected among one start switch SW out of those present around the front case 12, one start switch SW out of those present around the rear case 13, and the one start switch SW on the left side of the front grip 25.”); (Col. 3, line 49, “According to the eighth aspect, unless the two pressure sensor switches are operated in a simultaneous manner, the electric power tool will not start and thus an erroneous start or a malfunction thereof occurring in an inadvertent situation by the user may be prevented. By providing the pressure sensor switches as the electronic switch, the switch operation can be easily performed and also consecutive operation can be performed in comparison to a mechanical switch operated by a slide operation or a tilting operation. After the electric power tool has initially been started, it can be configured to be held in the starting state if one pressure sensor switch is turned on.”).
Regarding claim 5, Numata further discloses: the controller (Fig. 1, controller C) is configured to continue operation of the motor after start-up if the main trigger is released and reengaged within a time threshold while the auxiliary trigger is still engaged. (Col. 6, line 14, “When any one of the remaining five start switches SW is turned on after the electric motor M starts by turning on two start switches SW, the starting state of the electric motor M will be locked to cause the electric power tool 1 to be held in a continuous running state (a so-called locked state). After the electric power tool 1 is once held in the continuous running state, the continuous running state of the electric motor M will be held even if all of the three start switches SW are released from the on-operation (even if the user detaches the fingertips from all of the three start switches SW). Because of this configuration, for example, the user can easily perform a polishing work to a portion of a working surface continuously for a long time while holding the rear side of the tool main body 10 with one hand, without needing to hold any of the SW buttons. In this continuous running state, when any one of the seven start switches SW is pushed (an off-operation), the running continuation state will be released to cause the electric motor M to stop; Furthermore, during the continuous running state (locked-on state) of the electric power tool 1, at a time when the wearable device W worn by the user and the electric power tool 1, in relation to each other are disposed too far away to receive information, then the state will change to an electrically locked state that is mentioned infra, so as to cause the continuous running state to be cancelled. Because of this configuration, the starting system also possesses a tool theft suppressing effect and safety is also enhanced since the starting of the tool as well as the continuous running state thereof under an unintended situation for the user can be eliminated; As described above, the starting state is configured to be changed to the continuous running state when three start switches SE are pressed. Alternatively, the starting state may be configured to transition to the continuous running state when, for example, any one of the remaining start switches SW is double-tapped after the electric motor M starts by turning on two start switches SW.”)
Regarding claim 6, Numata further discloses:
6. The power tool of claim 1, wherein the housing (Fig. 1, main body case 11) comprises:
a motor case (Fig. 1, main body case 11, Col. 4, line 35, “The motor is housed in a tubular shaped main body case 11”) within which the electric motor is located;
a handle portion (Fig. 1, rear case 13) extending longitudinally from the motor case that accommodates the main trigger switch; and
a gear case (Fig. 1, gear head 20) that accommodates a gearset for coupling the electric motor to an output spindle (Fig. 1,spindle 22), wherein the side handle is mounted to the gear case (Fig. 1,front grip 25).
Regarding claim 7, Numata further discloses: the side handle (Fig. 1,front grip 25) is oriented along a center axis, and wherein a peripheral position of the auxiliary trigger relative to the center axis is adjustable (Fig. 2 clearly shows a threaded receiving device for alternating whichever side the user will utilize) .
PNG
media_image1.png
374
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata in view of Swaminathan, US 20210060757.
Regarding claim 8, Numata discloses the device of claim 7.
Numata does not explicitly disclose: the side handle comprises an adjustable main grip body and a locking mechanism, wherein the adjustable main grip body is rotatable relative to the center axis in a first position of the locking mechanism, and the adjustable main grip body is fixed in a desired angular orientation relative to the center axis in a second position of the locking mechanism.
Swaminathan teaches: the side handle (Figs. 1-9, auxiliary handle assembly 108) comprises an adjustable main grip body (Figs. 1-9, longitudinal handle 116) and a locking mechanism (Figs. 1-9, auxiliary handle assembly 108), wherein the adjustable main grip body is rotatable relative to the center axis in a first position of the locking mechanism, and the adjustable main grip body is fixed in a desired angular orientation relative to the center axis in a second position of the locking mechanism (see Figs. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the adjustable handle structure as taught by Swaminathan, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this arrangement is that it allows the user to adjust the handle to his/her needs without the use of tools which may not be available at the time of need.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Numata further discloses: the side handle (Figs. 1-9, auxiliary handle assembly 108) comprises a main grip body (Figs. 1-9, auxiliary handle assembly 108) and a frontal mounting member (Figs. 1-9, handle base 130), wherein one of the main grip body and the frontal mounting member is moveable relative to the other between a first position in which the main grip body is fixed relative to the gear case and a second position in which the main grip body is adjustable relative to the gear case (see Figs. 1-9).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata in view of Kaneko, US 20230011055.
Regarding claim 10, Numata discloses the device of claim 6.
Numata does not explicitly disclose: the gear case includes a pin hole and an electronic switch located within the gear case in alignment with the pin hole, and wherein the side handle includes a plunger that is moveable into the pin hole to contact the electronic switch when the auxiliary trigger is actuated.
Kaneko teaches: the gear case includes a pin hole (Fig. 15, [0137], “The handle attachment holes 216a, 218a include column recesses 216b, 218b which have substantially column shapes and through which the cylindrical portion 208a of the side handle 204 can pass, rectangular parallelepiped recesses 216c, 218c which have substantially rectangular parallelepiped shapes and through which the protruding ridge 208b of the side handle 204 can pass”) and an electronic switch ([0137-0138], “sensor units 84, 86”) located within the gear case in alignment with the pin hole, and wherein the side handle includes a plunger (Figs. 13-14, 16-17, engagement member 208) that is moveable into the pin hole to contact the electronic switch when the auxiliary trigger is actuated ([0137-0138])..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the trigger structure as taught by Kaneko in combination with the auxiliary handle of Numata, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. This alteration represents a simple substitution of one type of switch for another, as switches are a common and widely known feature of this type of device. In this instance, Numata uses an electronic switch within the handle, while Kaneko uses a mechanical switch.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Numata further discloses: the auxiliary trigger is pivotably coupled to the side handle (see Fig. 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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 at 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731