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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The IDS filed 2/7/2025 was received and considered.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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: “detecting unit” and “unlocking unit” in claims 13-15.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0364360 A1 to Bessegato et al. (Bessegato).
Regarding claim 1, Bessegato discloses a method for unlocking a mobile device (power tool, ¶16), in the form of a motor-driven user-controlled handheld gardening, forestry, construction, and/or cultivating device (tool for gardening, construction, etc., ¶17) and/or a battery pack for the gardening, forestry, construction, and/or cultivating device (can be applied to a battery pack, ¶57), for a limited unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy (master counter, decremented during use, enables use of the power tool, ¶21; decrementing counters lasts for a particular duration, ¶3) for an operation of the mobile device outside a bounded position area (when counters expire, device ceases to operate, only re-enabled when communication is established with a docking cradle, ¶20; connection with docking cradle can be wireless, ¶29; a skilled artisan would understand that requiring re-establishing of a wireless connection with the docking cradle requires at least a maximum distance between the mobile device and docking cradle), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) detecting whether the mobile device is inside the bounded position area (detecting wireless connection between power tool and docking cradle for key exchange, ¶29); and b) triggering, when the mobile device is detected inside the position area (based on connection being established between the tool and docking cradle, ¶29), an unlocking of the device (master counter is reset upon communication with docking cradle and receiving an authentication key, ¶33) for the limited unlocked period of time, unlocked period of operating time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy (while tool is used, counters are decremented, ¶34), for the operation of the device outside the bounded position area (device operates, out of range of docking cradle, until counter is expired, ¶35).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale, where the detection unit is represented by processors 202, ¶32 in combination with the communication module, (¶29) and the unlocking unit is represented by processors 202 (¶32), with power module (¶24 and ¶26).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 13 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale, where the detection unit is represented by processors 202, ¶32 in combination with the communication module, (¶29) and the unlocking unit is represented by processors 202 (¶32), with power module (¶24 and ¶26).
Regarding claim 4, Bessegato discloses wherein the method comprises, chronologically before step b), the step of: receiving, by the mobile device, an unlocking variable representative of the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy for the operation of the device (owner allows use for a time that is predetermined, ¶58; counters are initialized to represent a certain amount of time, ¶32).
Regarding claim 5, Bessegato discloses wherein the position area is bounded by a range of a connection that is enabled for wireless reception between the mobile device and an assigned transmitting unit (connection with docking cradle can be wireless, ¶29; a skilled artisan would understand that requiring re-establishing of a wireless connection with the docking cradle requires at least a maximum distance between the mobile device and docking cradle), and wherein step a) comprises: detecting the mobile device inside the position area by establishing the connection (master counter is reset upon communication with docking cradle and receiving an authentication key, ¶33).
Regarding claim 6, Bessegato discloses wherein establishing the connection comprises: sending a device identifier from the mobile device and/or a unit identifier from the transmitting unit (docking cradle provides a unique master key capable of resetting the counter, ¶21; keys authenticate the device communicating, ¶30), and checking based on the sent device identifier and/or the sent unit identifier that the mobile device and the transmitting unit are assigned to one another (authentication module authenticates docking cradle as a device permitted to provide keys ¶30; counters are assigned to the keys, ¶31).
Regarding claim 7, Bessegato discloses wherein step b) comprises: sending, to the mobile device, an unlocking signal (docking cradle provides a unique master key capable of resetting the counter, ¶21; keys authenticate the device communicating, ¶30) to unlock the mobile device for the limited unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy for the operation of the device (master counter is reset upon communication with docking cradle and receiving an authentication key, ¶33; device operates, out of range of docking cradle, until counter is expired, ¶35).
Regarding claim 8, Bessegato discloses wherein the unlocking signal is an unlocking dimension representative of the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time (authentication module authenticates docking cradle as a device permitted to provide keys ¶30; counters are assigned to the keys, ¶31), unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy for the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Bessegato discloses wherein, triggered by the unlocking of the device for the limited unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy (while power tool is checked out, processors cause master counter and user counter to decrement, ¶34), the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy, counts down (while power tool is checked out, processors cause master counter and user counter to decrement, ¶34), and/or wherein, triggered when the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy has expired, the operation of the mobile device is blocked (after one of master counter or user counter expire, processor disables operation of power tool, ¶32).
Regarding claim 10, Bessegato discloses wherein step b) comprises: determining and/or unlocking the unlocked period of time and/or blocking the operation of the device such that the operation of the device outside a defined working time window (after one of master counter or user counter expire, processor disables operation of power tool, ¶32) is blocked for a use of the gardening, forestry, construction, and/or cultivating device (tool for gardening, construction, etc., ¶17) and/or the battery pack (invention can be applied to a battery pack, ¶57).
Regarding claim 14, Bessegato discloses wherein the system comprises the mobile device, which contains the detecting unit and/or the unlocking unit (tool for gardening, construction, etc., ¶17, comprises processors 202, ¶32).
Regarding claim 16, Bessegato discloses wherein the method is carried out via commands stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of a computer product (¶93).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessegato, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2013/0109375 A1 to Zeiler et al. (Zeiler).
Regarding claim 2, Bessegato lacks wherein step a) comprises: determining a position of the mobile device; and checking that the determined position is inside the bounded position area. However, Zeiler, in an analogous art (lowering the risk of theft of power tools, ¶3), teaches that it was known to include tracking (¶57) and location functionality into a tool (¶62), where the tool can be configured with a bounded position area (geo-fence, ¶95), monitor the location of the tool compared to the bounded position area (geo-fence, ¶¶95-96) and cause an alarm if the tool determines the current position of the tool to be outside of the bounded position area (¶96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bessegato to include determining a position of the mobile device; and checking that the determined position is inside the bounded position area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to establish specific geo-fences for a tool to prevent theft, as taught by Zeiler.
Regarding claim 3, Bessegato lacks wherein the method comprises, chronologically before step a), the step of receiving, by the mobile device, at least one position area dimension representative of the position area, and/or determining a specified position of the mobile device and receiving, by the mobile device, a confirmation signal to confirm the determined specified position to specify the position area. However, Zeiler, in an analogous art (lowering the risk of theft of power tools, ¶3), teaches that it was known to include tracking (¶57) and location functionality into a tool (¶62), where the tool can be configured with a bounded position area (geo-fence, ¶95), monitor the location of the tool compared to the bounded position area (geo-fence, ¶¶95-96) and cause an alarm if the tool determines the current position of the tool to be outside of the bounded position area (¶96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bessegato to include chronologically before step a), the step of receiving, by the mobile device (power tool), at least one position area dimension representative of the position area (geo-fence), and/or determining a specified position of the mobile device and receiving, by the mobile device, a confirmation signal to confirm the determined specified position to specify the position area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to establish specific geo-fences for a tool to prevent theft, as taught by Zeiler.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessegato, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2014/0132392 A1 to Kady.
Regarding claim 11, Bessegato teaches disabling a tool, but does not explicitly disclose outputting user-perceptible information about whether or not the operation of the device is unlocked for the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy. However, Kady, in an analogous art (preventing device equipment theft, ¶3), teaches that it was known to enable a device, including a power tool (Fig. 1), to be operable for a certain activation period (¶47) and to include a display on the power tool (Fig. 1, 14) indicating an activation time remaining (indicates the activation time remaining and, if desired, the current status of the tool, ¶60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bessegato to include outputting user-perceptible information about whether or not the operation of the device is unlocked for the unlocked period of time, unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to indicate to the user that the tool is operable, as taught by Kady.
Regarding claim 12, Bessegato, as modified by Kady, teaches wherein the user-perceptible information is about whether or not the unlocked period of time (indicates the activation time remaining, Kady ¶60), unlocked operating period of time, unlocked number of operating cycles, and/or unlocked amount of operating energy is counting down (time remaining indicates a reducing value, Kady ¶60).1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190027002 A1 (Esenwein; Florian et al.) teaches a power tool anti-theft configuration based on geographical position (¶¶31-33, ¶39).
US 20130033375 A1 (DOYLE; Thomas F. et al.) teaches monitoring a device for removal from a safe zone, including setting an authorized period of time where the device is authorized to be outside the safe zone before an alarm is issued (¶24).
US 20160325391 A1 (Stampfl; Burtrom Lee et al.) teaches indicating a lock-out time remaining before a device is rendered inoperable (¶67).
US 20110106437 A1 (Husain; Aliasgar Mumtaz et al.) teaches monitoring a location and allowing a “deviation time” to enable temporary movement outside a predetermined location.
US 20040008582 A1 (Richards, Alan Robert et al.) teaches a rented device displaying a countdown timer (¶12, ¶33).
US 20050094786 A1 (Ossa, Cristian A.) teaches an LED display indicating a time remaining for a rental device use (abstract).
DE 102013012897 A1 (LEITENBERGER THOMAS) teaches an operating time counter for a power tool (translation, ¶6).
US 20120111589 A1 (Schmidt; Peer et al.) teaches an anti-theft mechanism for a power tool.
US 20140240125 A1 (Burch; Wade F. et al.) teaches similar subject matter to Zeiler et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
June 30, 2026
1 US 20040008582 A1 (Richards, Alan Robert et al.) teaches a rented device displaying a countdown timer (¶12, ¶33); US 20050094786 A1 (Ossa, Cristian A.) teaches an LED display indicating a time remaining for a rental device use (abstract)
Prosecution Insights