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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 21-31 and 37-40) in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 32-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 June 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-31 and 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,085 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite a broader version of the same limitations presented in the ‘085 Patent. As such, the claims of the ‘085 Patent read on the instant claims.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 1 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 2 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 3 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 4 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 5 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 6 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 7 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 8 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 29, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 9 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 10 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 11 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 37, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 12 (or claims 1 and 10) of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 38, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 13 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 39, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 11 of the ‘085 Patent.
Regarding claim 40, the limitations of this claim are read on by claim 14 of the ‘085 Patent.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-31 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 2017/0246732 A1) hereinafter referred to Dey in view of Ely (WO 2008/139216 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Dey discloses a power tool (10) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1; #20, 25, 30);
a brushless direct current (DC) motor (#15 – paragraph 0052) within the housing (figs. 1 and 21A), wherein the brushless DC motor includes a rotor (paragraphs 0056, 0058) and a stator (paragraph 0058 – “stator coils”), wherein the rotor is coupled to a motor shaft (fig. 21A-B – shaft extending between #15 and #77 and/or shaft connecting #77 to #375 in fig. 21B; see also shaft connecting #15 to impact mechanism #67 in fig. 1) to produce a rotational output (paragraphs 0053, 0058, 0079);
an impact mechanism (#67, fig. 1; #300, fig. 14) including:
a hammer (#75, fig. 1; #375, fig. 14) coupled to the motor shaft (paragraphs 0053, 0058, 0079), and
an anvil (#70, fig. 1; #370, fig. 14) including anvil lugs (90, fig. 1; also 390a, 390b, fig. 14) configured to receive impacts from the hammer (paragraphs 0053, 0079);
an output drive device (#40 and longitudinal shaft of anvil #70, 370) including a shaft (#40 and longitudinal shaft of anvil #70, 370; figs. 1, 14, 18-19 and 21) coupled to the anvil and configured to rotate to perform a task (paragraphs 0053, 0079); and
a position sensor (#305; It is noted that the teachings of the methods utilized by positions sensors #130 and #405 are cited as being applicable to those of #305 in paragraphs 0081 and 0082) including:
an inductive sensor (#305a, 305b and/or 305c, paragraph 0080; see also #130, paragraph 0056 and 0081 for related teachings and #405 paragraphs 0082, 0083 for related teachings) positioned proximate the anvil lugs (paragraph 0079, fig. 14),
a first transmitting circuit trace (paragraph 0080 – “The three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, 305c are positioned on an annular structure (i.e., a printed circuit board (PCB)… Since the two protrusions 390a, 390b are stationary relative to the anvil 370, the three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, 305c output information regarding the rotational position of the anvil 370”; emphasis added. The trace of the PCB that sends the signal out towards the controller 135.), and
a first receiving circuit trace, wherein the inductive sensor is configured to inject a signal on the first transmitting circuit trace and detect a first output signal on the first receiving circuit trace to determine a position of the anvil (paragraph 0080 – “The three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, and 305c can detect, by detecting a change in their electromagnetic field, the passing of the two protrusions 390a, 390b of the engagement structure 385 of the anvil 370, and may, in some instances, be referred to as anvil position sensors or anvil sensors… Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned” emphasis added. The trace of the PCB connected to the controller 135 that receives the signal); and
a controller (135) connected to the position sensor (paragraph 0080 – “each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned”), the controller configured to:
control the brushless DC motor based on the drive angle of the anvil (paragraphs 0080-0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Dey is deemed to disclose a first transmitting circuit trace and a first receiving circuit trace in that it discloses a PCB which both transmits signals from the sensors and receives signals at the controller. Wherein the Applicant may argue that traces are not part of a PCB, the Office further points to Ely.
Ely teaches position sensor (fig. 1) using a PCB (#9; figs. 8a-8b) which makes use of multiple traces (13-2 and 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) to transmit and receive signals.
Given the teachings of Ely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teachings of Dey to include multiple traces for transmitting and receiving information. Ely teaches how traces were a common means on electrically connecting sensors to other components to as to transmit and receive data that was being gathered. Traces were a well-known means of transmitting and receiving signals which were easy to construct and reliable for doing so.
Regarding claim 22, Dey discloses wherein, to calculate the drive angle, the controller (135) is configured to:
determine a first rotational position of the anvil upon a first impact between the hammer and the anvil based on the first output signal,
determine a second rotational position of the anvil upon a second impact between the hammer and the anvil based on the first output signal, and
determine a drive angle experienced by the output drive device based on the first rotational position and the second rotational position (paragraph 0080 – “Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned… When a plurality of position measurements for the anvil 370 are analyzed over time, other measurements regarding the anvil 370 can be derived (e.g., velocity, acceleration, etc.). Therefore, the output position sensor 305 provides information that the controller 135 of the power tool 10 uses to directly determine the position, velocity, and/or acceleration of the anvil 370”; see also paragraph 0081 referring to figs. 3-12 and methods of paragraphs 0065-0069, 0071, 0075; fig. 4, #153, 155, 160, 165, 170; fig. 5, #179, 180, 185, 205; fig. 11; additionally, fig. 30, #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Regarding claim 23, Dey discloses wherein, to determine the drive angle experienced by the output drive device based on the first rotational position and the second rotational position, the controller is configured to:
determine a difference between the second rotational position and the first rotational position,
subtract a predetermined angle from the difference between the second rotational position and the first rotational position, and
determine the drive angle experienced by the output drive device based on the difference between the second rotational position and the first rotational position subtracted by the predetermined angle (paragraph 0080 – “Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned. When one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the first end 380 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c generates a larger output signal. On the other hand, when one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the second end 382 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a smaller output signal. When a plurality of position measurements for the anvil 370 are analyzed over time, other measurements regarding the anvil 370 can be derived (e.g., velocity, acceleration, etc.). Therefore, the output position sensor 305 provides information that the controller 135 of the power tool 10 uses to directly determine the position, velocity, and/or acceleration of the anvil 370”).
Regarding claim 24, Dey discloses wherein the controller (135) is configured to: control the brushless DC motor (15) based on the drive angle experienced by the output drive device by adjusting a speed (paragraphs 0066, 0071, 0073) of the brushless DC motor based on the drive angle experienced by the output drive device (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Regarding claim 25, Dey discloses wherein, to control the brushless DC motor based on the drive angle, the controller is configured to: determine a rotation count by accumulating a value for each calculated drive angle of the anvil below a drive angle threshold (#155, 190, 250, 1020, 1130) of a plurality of calculated drive angles of the anvil, and reduce a speed (paragraphs 0066, 0071; also #1135) of the brushless DC motor in response to determining that the rotation count is greater than a rotation threshold (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Regarding claim 26, Dey discloses a transceiver (#146; paragraph 0061) coupled to the controller (#135; fig. 3), wherein the controller is configured to receive, wirelessly from an external device (#147; fig. 3; paragraph 0061) via the transceiver, the rotation threshold (paragraph 0061 – “The external device 147 generates a graphical user interface (see, e.g., FIG. 10) that receives various control parameters from a user… The graphical user interface receives selections from a user specifying which features are included in each mode profile and defining the parameter values for the selected features… the controller 135 can convert into absolute values for controlling the operation of the power tool 10.”; #155, 190, 230, 260, 1020, 1130).
Regarding claim 27, Dey discloses wherein, to control the brushless DC motor based on the drive angle, the controller is configured to: determine whether the drive angle of the anvil is less than a drive angle threshold (#155, 190, 230, 250, 1020, 1130), and reduce a speed (paragraphs 0066, 0071, 0073; also #1135) of the brushless DC motor in response to determining that the drive angle of the anvil is less than the drive angle threshold (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Regarding claim 28, Dey discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the drive angle of the anvil is less than a drive angle threshold (#155; 190), increment an impact counter (#160; 205) for a detected impact in response to determining that the drive angle of the anvil is less than the drive angle threshold, determine whether the impact counter has reached an impact counter threshold (#165; 210), and reduce a speed (#170, paragraph 0066; #215) of the brushless DC motor in response to determining that the impact counter has reached the impact counter threshold (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 and paragraphs 0064-0067; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Dey discloses a transceiver (#146; paragraph 0061) coupled to the controller (#135; fig. 3), wherein the controller is configured to receive, wirelessly from an external device (#147; fig. 3; paragraph 0061) via the transceiver, a finishing speed (paragraph 0061 – “The external device 147 generates a graphical user interface (see, e.g., FIG. 10) that receives various control parameters from a user… The graphical user interface receives selections from a user specifying which features are included in each mode profile and defining the parameter values for the selected features… the controller 135 can convert into absolute values for controlling the operation of the power tool 10.”; #170, 215, 265; fig. 10 – “Speed (RPM)”; #1135), and wherein the controller, to reduce the speed of the brushless DC motor in response to determining that the impact counter has reached the impact counter threshold, is configured to reduce the speed of the brushless DC motor from a first speed to the finishing speed (paragraphs 0066, 0069, 0119).
Regarding claim 30, Dey as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the position sensor (Dey - 305) further comprises: a second receiving circuit trace (Dey – paragraph 0080, printed circuit for any of #305a, 305b or 305c not used for first transmitting circuit trace in parent claim; Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38), wherein the inductive sensor is configured to: detect a second output signal on the second receiving circuit trace, and determine the position of the anvil based on the first output signal and the second output signal (paragraph 0080 – “each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned”).
Regarding claim 31, Dey as modified by Ely above discloses a first anvil lug (Dey - 390a) overlaps the first receiving circuit trace (Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) and the second receiving circuit trace circuit (Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) during a first portion of a rotation path of the anvil, and a second anvil lug (Dey - 390b) that overlaps the first receiving circuit trace and the second receiving circuit trace circuit during a second portion of the rotation path of the anvil (Dey - paragraph 0080 – “Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned. When one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the first end 380 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c generates a larger output signal. On the other hand, when one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the second end 382 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a smaller output signal.”).
Regarding claim 37, Dey discloses an impact power tool (10) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1; #20, 25, 30);
a brushless direct current (DC) motor (#15 – paragraph 0052) within the housing (figs. 1 and 21A), wherein the brushless DC motor includes a rotor (paragraphs 0056, 0058) and a stator (paragraph 0058 – “stator coils”), wherein the rotor is coupled to a motor shaft (fig. 21A-B – shaft extending between #15 and #77 and/or shaft connecting #77 to #375 in fig. 21B; see also shaft connecting #15 to impact mechanism #67 in fig. 1) to produce a rotational output (paragraphs 0053, 0058, 0079);
an impact mechanism (#67, fig. 1; #300, fig. 14) including:
a hammer (#75, fig. 1; #375, fig. 14) connected to the motor shaft (paragraphs 0053, 0058, 0079), and
an anvil (#70, fig. 1; #370, fig. 14) including anvil lugs (90, fig. 1; also 390a, 390b, fig. 14) configured to receive impacts from the hammer (paragraphs 0053, 0079);
an output drive device (#40 and longitudinal shaft of anvil #70, 370) including a shaft (#40 and longitudinal shaft of anvil #70, 370; figs. 1, 14, 18-19 and 21) coupled to the anvil and configured to rotate to perform a task (paragraph 0053); and
a position sensor (#305; It is noted that the teachings of the methods utilized by positions sensors #130 and #405 are cited as being applicable to those of #305 in paragraphs 0081 and 0082) including:
an inductive sensor (#305a, 305b and/or 305c, paragraph 0080; see also #130, paragraph 0056 and 0081 for related teachings and #405 paragraphs 0082, 0083 for related teachings) positioned proximate the anvil lugs (paragraph 0079, fig. 14),
a first transmitting circuit trace (paragraph 0080 – “The three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, 305c are positioned on an annular structure (i.e., a printed circuit board (PCB)… Since the two protrusions 390a, 390b are stationary relative to the anvil 370, the three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, 305c output information regarding the rotational position of the anvil 370”; emphasis added. The trace of the PCB that sends the signal out towards the controller 135.), and
a first receiving circuit trace, wherein the inductive sensor is configured to inject a signal on the first transmitting circuit trace and detect a first output signal on the first receiving circuit trace (paragraph 0080 – “The three inductive sensors 305a, 305b, and 305c can detect, by detecting a change in their electromagnetic field, the passing of the two protrusions 390a, 390b of the engagement structure 385 of the anvil 370, and may, in some instances, be referred to as anvil position sensors or anvil sensors… Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned” emphasis added. The trace of the PCB connected to the controller 135 that receives the signal); and
a controller (135) coupled to the position sensor (paragraph 0080 – “each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned”) and configured to:
receive, from the position sensor, a first position signal from the position sensor at a first time (paragraph 0080 – “When a plurality of position measurements for the anvil 370 are analyzed over time”),
receive a second position signal from the position sensor at a second time (paragraph 0080 – “When a plurality of position measurements for the anvil 370 are analyzed over time”),
calculate a position of the anvil based on the first position signal and the second position signal (paragraph 0080 – “Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned. When one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the first end 380 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c generates a larger output signal. On the other hand, when one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the second end 382 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a smaller output signal. When a plurality of position measurements for the anvil 370 are analyzed over time, other measurements regarding the anvil 370 can be derived (e.g., velocity, acceleration, etc.). Therefore, the output position sensor 305 provides information that the controller 135 of the power tool 10 uses to directly determine the position, velocity, and/or acceleration of the anvil 370”),
control the brushless DC motor based on the position of the anvil (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135).
Dey is deemed to disclose a first transmitting circuit trace and a first receiving circuit trace in that it discloses a PCB which both transmits signals from the sensors and receives signals at the controller. Wherein the Applicant may argue that traces are not part of a PCB, the Office further points to Ely.
Ely teaches position sensor (fig. 1) using a PCB (#9; figs. 8a-8b) which makes use of multiple traces (13-2 and 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) to transmit and receive signals.
Given the teachings of Ely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teachings of Dey to include multiple traces for transmitting and receiving information. Ely teaches how traces were a common means on electrically connecting sensors to other components to as to transmit and receive data that was being gathered. Traces were a well-known means of transmitting and receiving signals which were easy to construct and reliable for doing so.
Regarding claim 38, Dey as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the position sensor (Dey - 305) includes: a second receiving circuit trace (Dey – paragraph 0080, printed circuit for any of #305a, 305b or 305c not used for first transmitting circuit trace in parent claim; Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38), wherein the inductive sensor is configured to: detect a second output signal on the second receiving circuit trace, and determine the position of the anvil based on the first output signal and the second output signal (paragraph 0080 – “each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned”).
Regarding claim 39, Dey as modified by Ely disclosese a first anvil lug (Dey - 390a) overlaps the first receiving circuit trace (Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) and the second receiving circuit trace circuit (Ely – figs. 8a-8b, #13-2, 13-1; pg. 7 line 36 – pg. 9 line 38) during a first portion of a rotation path of the anvil, and a second anvil lug (Dey - 390b) that overlaps the first receiving circuit trace and the second receiving circuit trace circuit during a second portion of the rotation path of the anvil (Dey - paragraph 0080 – “Therefore, each inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a different signal to the controller 135 based on where along the length of the inductive sensor 305a, 350b, 305c each of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned. When one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the first end 380 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the inductive sensor 305a, 305b, 305c generates a larger output signal. On the other hand, when one of the protrusions 390a, 390b is positioned closer to the second end 382 of the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c, the sensor 305a, 305b, 305c outputs a smaller output signal.”).
Regarding claim 40, Dey discloses wherein, to control the brushless DC motor based on the position of the anvil (paragraph 0081; fig. 4 - #153, 155, 170; fig. 5 - #180, 185, 190, 215; fig. 7 - #225, 230, 240; fig. 9 - #245, 250, 265; fig. 30 - #1015, 1020, 1025; fig. 31 - #1120, 1130, 1135), the controller is configured to reduce a speed (paragraphs 0066, 0071; also #1135) of the brushless DC motor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References cited. The art of record not relied upon generally pertains to electric controls of hand impact tools as exemplified by Dey, IV et al. (US 2017/0173768).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights