DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an output mechanism (claim 20 – “disposed at least partially in the housing”) for driving a function element that implements a set function” in claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 20.
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. Specific elucidation of these limitations occurs in the specification and will be interpreted as such –
Output Mechanism - “[0228] As shown in FIG. 4, the output mechanism 14 is configured to drive the function element 13. In this example, the output mechanism 14 includes an output shaft 141. In some examples, a transmission assembly is connected between the output mechanism 14 and the electric motor assembly 20, for example, in high-speed and high-torque output tools such as screwdrivers, drills, and saws. The transmission assembly transmits output power of the electric motor assembly 20 to the output mechanism 14, and the output mechanism 14 drives the function element 13 to machine a workpiece. In some examples, the electric motor assembly 20 directly drives the output mechanism 14, for example, in the fan, the blower, and mowing tools, and the output mechanism 14 drives the function element 13 to machine the workpiece.
Function element that implements a set function – “[0229] The function element 13 is configured to implement a set function. In this example, the function element 13 is configured to implement the work function of the power tool, such as a saw blade for cutting the workpiece. In other alternative examples, the function element 13 may be a grinding disc, a blade, a screwdriver, a fan, a pump, or a walking wheel.”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 12, and all subsequent dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “limit values of efficiency of the electric motor assembly constitute a total efficiency interval, and efficiency values of the electric motor assembly greater than or equal to 70% constitute a first efficiency interval, and a ratio of the first efficiency interval to the total efficiency interval is greater than or equal to 0.5” is not described within the specification so as to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend and/or utilize the invention. Upon in depth analysis of this limitation, the Examiner merely finds circular definition repeated over and over again. What is the “limit value of efficiency”? It is a total efficiency interval. What is the “total efficiency interval”? It is the limit value of efficiency. No units are provided for definition, nor any other description as to what exactly is being measured. Later comparison ratios merely compound the confusion, as the undefined limits and intervals are compared to each other, without any baseline as to what is actually being compared. As the Examiner is unable to understand the claim limitations, this claim series cannot be examined as written (Examiner’s note – absent the specific language discussed in this rejection, the prior art of claim 13 reads on all of the remaining claim limitations). The Examiner notes that while a prior art rejection is not included, alteration of the claim may lead to a prior art rejection in subsequent actions.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the limitation “a working efficiency” is not described within the specification so as to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend and/or utilize the invention. Regarding the term “working efficiency”, no units are provided for definition, nor any other description as to what exactly is being measured. As the Examiner is unable to understand the claim limitations, this claim series cannot be examined as written (Examiner’s note – absent the specific language discussed in this rejection, the prior art of claim 13 reads on all of the remaining claim limitations).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 12, and all subsequent dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “limit values of efficiency of the electric motor assembly constitute a total efficiency interval, and efficiency values of the electric motor assembly greater than or equal to 70% constitute a first efficiency interval, and a ratio of the first efficiency interval to the total efficiency interval is greater than or equal to 0.5” render the claim indefinite, as the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim limitations. As discussed above in the 112A rejection, the claim sets cannot be examined at this time due to the fact that the Examiner would be required to guess what the actual invention is.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the limitation “a working efficiency” render the claim indefinite, as the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim limitations. As discussed above in the 112A rejection, the claim sets cannot be examined at this time due to the fact that the Examiner would be required to guess what the actual invention is.
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 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greunke, (US 2024/0408710).
Regarding claim 13, Greunke discloses: A power tool (Fig. 2, rotary hammer 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, housing 14);
an output mechanism (Fig. 2, spindle 23) for driving a function element that implements a set function;
a power supply mounting portion (Fig. 2, first and second receptacles 31, 32) for mounting a direct current power supply (Fig. 2, first and second battery packs 29, 30); and
an electric motor assembly (Fig. 2, first and second motors 18, 20), disposed at least partially in the housing, comprising:
a first electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a first torque and a first rotational speed and driving the output mechanism (all electric motors output a torque/speed value); and
a second electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a second torque and a second rotational speed and driving the output mechanism (all electric motors output a torque/speed value);
wherein the direct current power supply supplies power to the first electric motor and the second electric motor ([0016] “The first and second motors 18, 20 are configured as DC motors that receive power from on-board power sources, such as first and second battery packs 29, 30 that are respectively selectively coupled to first and second receptacles 31, 32 on the housing 14. In some embodiments, only the first battery pack 29 is coupled to the first receptacle 31, and the first and second motors 18, 20 both receive power from the first battery pack 29. In other embodiments, only the second battery pack 30 is coupled to the second receptacle 32 and the first and second motors 18, 20 both receive power from the second battery pack 30. In other embodiments, the first and second battery packs 29, 30 are both respectively coupled to the first and second receptacles 31, 32, and the first motor 18 receives power from the first battery pack 29, and the second motor 20 receives power from the second battery pack 30.”), and a nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than or equal to 18 V ([0017] “The first and second battery packs 29, 30 may include any of a number of different nominal voltages (e.g., 12V, 18V, etc.),”).
Regarding claim 14, Greunke further discloses: the first electric motor and the second electric motor are each a brushless motor (Milwaukee has been using Brushless motors in this type of tool for over a decade. The following screen shot (Examiner’s Illustration 1) is taken from the official Milwaukee website (URL visible in illustration - https://www.milwaukeetool.com/company/milwaukee-story).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 1
Regarding claim 15, Greunke further discloses: the direct current power supply comprises a battery pack ([0017] “The first and second battery packs 29, 30 may include any of a number of different nominal voltages (e.g., 12V, 18V, etc.),”).
Regarding claim 16, Greunke further discloses: the battery pack supplies power to various power tools (the tool in question is a Milwaukee power tool. These tools are commonly known to utilize interchangeable power packs that are usable in a numerosity of Milwaukee tools).
Regarding claim 17, Greunke further discloses: the nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than or equal to 18 V and less than or equal to 56 V ([0017] “The first and second battery packs 29, 30 may include any of a number of different nominal voltages (e.g., 12V, 18V, etc.),”).
Regarding claim 19, Greunke further discloses: the power supply mounting portion is disposed at least partially on the housing (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Greunke discloses: A power tool (Fig. 2, rotary hammer 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, housing 14);
an output mechanism (Fig. 2, spindle 23), disposed at least partially in the housing, for driving a function element (Fig. 2, tool bit 24) that implements a set function;
a power supply mounting portion (Fig. 2, first and second receptacles 31, 32) for mounting a direct current power supply (Fig. 2, first and second battery packs 29, 30); and
an electric motor assembly (Fig. 2, first and second motors 18, 20) used for driving the output mechanism comprising:
a first electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a first torque and a first rotational speed (all electric motors output a torque/speed value); and
a second electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a second torque and a second rotational speed (all electric motors output a torque/speed value);
wherein the first electric motor and the second electric motor are configured to have at least one different structural parameter (the motors have different locations).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greunke.
Regarding claim 18, Greunke discloses the device of claim 13.
Greunke does not explicitly disclose: the nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than 56 V and less than or equal to 120 V.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to select an appropriate voltage range for the tool in question, as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner must note that the current application does not actually specify the voltage of the battery for a specifically claimed tool or embodiment, but merely discusses the fact that a range of available battery voltages can be selected by the designer for a particular tool - ([0234], “In some examples, the nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than 56 V and less than or equal to 120 V. In some examples, the battery pack 21 may be a lithium battery pack, a solid-state battery pack, or a pouch battery pack. The nominal voltage of the battery pack is 18 V, 24 V, 36 V,48 V, 56 V, 80 V, or 120 V”).
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