DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the submission filed 4/10/2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degner et al. US 2014/0042406 in view of Nakamura et al. US 2025/0130427.
Regarding claim 1:
Degner teaches a job-site tool (e.g., [0037], last sentence lists various tools that may be used at a “job-site”) comprising:
a housing (12);
a display (14) on the housing, the display including
first and second light emitting sections (see FIG. 4; two sections are shown with pixels 24 and OLEDs 32) spaced apart from each other and first and second organic light-emitting materials (pixels 24 and OLEDs 32), the first light emitting section consisting of the first organic light-emitting material, the second light emitting section consisting of the second organic light-emitting material (observed in FIG. 4);
a flexible printed circuit (62/64) inside the housing and including conductive traces ([0055], traces 51/59), the flexible printed circuit having mounted thereon the first and second organic light-emitting materials (see FIG. 5; [0056]), the first and second organic light-emitting materials electrically connected to the conductive traces; and
a control board (101) housed in the housing (in view of [0080] and FIG. 13, FIGS. 1-3 show that the controller is housed in the housing; cf. [0083]), the control board including a controller (101/105/28/26) electrically connected to the first and second organic light-emitting materials via the conductive traces ([0046]).
Degner does not teach the first organic light-emitting material being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a first single color from a surface thereof, and the second organic light- emitting material being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a second single color distinct from the first single color from a surface thereof.
Nakamura discloses a related display having regions capable of emitting monochromatic light in different single colors (e.g., see [0069], [0130], [0138], [0209]).
Given that Nakamura suggests using regional monochromatic emitters of multiple colors, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, as a mere matter of design preference, to modify the light-emitting materials such that the first organic light-emitting material being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a first single color from a surface thereof, and the second organic light- emitting material being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a second single color distinct from the first single color from a surface thereof, in order to minimize the complexity of the display while still allowing it to be capable of displaying information to the user.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches a job-site tool (e.g., [0037], last sentence lists various tools that may be used at a “job-site”) comprising:
a display (14) visible from outside (FIGS. 1-3) and
including a first light emitting section (see sections in FIG. 4) and a first surface light emitter (24/32), the first light emitting section consisting of the first surface light emitter;
a flexible printed circuit (62/64) including conductive traces ([0055], traces 51/59), the flexible printed circuit having mounted thereon the first surface light emitter (see FIG. 5; [0056]), the first surface light emitter being electrically connected to the conductive traces; and
a control circuit (101/105/28/26) electrically connected to the display via the conductive traces ([0046]).
Degner does not teach the first surface light emitter being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a first single color from a surface thereof.
Nakamura discloses a related display having regions capable of emitting monochromatic light in different single colors (e.g., see [0069], [0130], [0138], [0209]).
Given that Nakamura suggests using regional monochromatic emitters of multiple colors, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, as a mere matter of design preference, to modify the light-emitting material such that the first surface light emitter being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a first single color from a surface thereof, in order to minimize the complexity of the display while still allowing it to be capable of displaying information to the user.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the control circuit is configured to control turning on or off of the first surface light emitter (i.e., the emitter can only be powered or turned off via the control circuit).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the first surface light emitter includes an organic light-emitting material ([0039], [0041]).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the display further includes a second light emitting section and a second surface light emitter, and wherein the second surface light emitter is a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a second single color distinct from the first single color from a surface thereof (addressed in claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the flexible printed circuit includes: a first end (FIG. 5, upper side end comprising 14); and a second end (lower side comprising 62) opposite the first end, wherein the conductive traces each includes an exposed portion configured to be directly or indirectly connected to the control circuit ([0055], e.g., see FIG. 5, where 51 is “coupled” to 59, meaning traces 51 were exposed enough to be able to electrically couple to 59), wherein the first surface light emitter is arranged on the flexible printed circuit to be closer to the first end than the second end (shown in FIG. 5), and wherein the exposed portion is arranged on the flexible printed circuit to be closer to the second end than the first end (shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches a connection method in a job-site tool (e.g., [0037], last sentence lists various tools that may be used at a “job-site”), the method comprising: arranging a display (14) including a first light emitting section and a first surface light emitter on an outer surface of the job-site tool, the first surface light emitter being a monochromatic emitter configured to emit light exclusively in a first single color from a surface thereof, the first light emitting section consisting of the first surface light emitter, the first surface light emitter being mounted on a flexible printed circuit and electrically connected to conductive traces included in the flexible printed circuit (addressed in claim 2 rejection above); arranging the flexible printed circuit inside the job-site tool (see FIGS. 1-3; [0003]); and electrically connecting the first surface light emitter to a control circuit in the job-site tool via the conductive traces ([0055]).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, further comprising: a connector electrically connected to the control circuit, wherein the conductive traces each includes an exposed portion configured to be directly inserted into the connector (e.g., Degner, [0080]).
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Degner and Nakamura, as applied above, and further in view of Nagasaka et al. US 2020/0047319.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising: a motor; and a trigger switch configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the display is configured to indicate an operation mode of the motor.
Nagasaka discloses a job-site tool having a motor (20); and a trigger switch (16) configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the display is configured to indicate an operation mode of the motor ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of the combination of Degner and Nakamura, by implementing the tool into a power tool having a motor; and a trigger switch configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the display is configured to indicate an operation mode of the motor.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 6, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising: a motor; and a trigger switch configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the control circuit is configured to: control turning on of the first surface light emitter based upon an operation mode of the motor; and control turning on of the second surface light emitter based on a remaining charge of a battery.
Nagasaka discloses a job-site tool having a motor (20); and a trigger switch (16) configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the control circuit is configured to: control turning on of the first surface light emitter based upon an operation mode of the motor ([0081]); and control turning on of the second surface light emitter based on a remaining charge of a battery ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of the combination of Degner and Nakamura, by implementing the tool into a power tool having a motor; and a trigger switch configured to be operated by a user to command the motor to stop or to rotate, wherein the control circuit is configured to: control turning on of the first surface light emitter based upon an operation mode of the motor; and control turning on of the second surface light emitter based on a remaining charge of a battery, as taught by Nagasaka, so that the user can be shown the current status of the tool.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Degner, Nakamura, and Nagasaka teaches the job-site tool according to claim 10, but does not teach wherein the display includes: a masked portion configured to interrupt a light; a first transmitting portion having a form of a first icon and configured to transmit a light; and a second transmitting portion having a form of a second icon and configured to transmit a light, wherein the first surface light emitter is arranged to face the first transmitting portion, and wherein the second surface light emitter is arranged to face the second transmitting portion.
However, Examiner takes official notice that providing recognizable icon-shaped light interrupting masks is old and well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the display of the combination of Degner, Nakamura, and Nagasaka, by having a masked portion configured to interrupt a light; a first transmitting portion having a form of a first icon and configured to transmit a light; and a second transmitting portion having a form of a second icon and configured to transmit a light, wherein the first surface light emitter is arranged to face the first transmitting portion, and wherein the second surface light emitter is arranged to face the second transmitting portion, such that the light emitters define recognizable icons to the user.
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
The combination of Degner and Nakamura teaches the job-site tool according to claim 2, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach further comprising: an intermediate structure arranged between the display and the control circuit, wherein the flexible printed circuit is an integrally formed member and passes through an inside of the intermediate structure, wherein the intermediate structure is a battery attachment portion to which a battery is detachably attached.
Nagasaka discloses a job-site tool (1) having an intermediate structure (see FIG. 3) arranged between the display and the control circuit, wherein the flexible printed circuit passes through an inside of the intermediate structure, wherein the intermediate structure is a battery attachment portion to which a battery (40) is detachably attached. Examiner notes that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of the combination of Degner and Nakamura, by implementing the display tool into a power tool, as shown by Nagasaka, having the flexible printed circuit be an integrally formed member, passing through an inside of the intermediate structure where it is contained, wherein the intermediate structure is a battery attachment portion to which a battery is detachably attached, which Nagasaka shows is a good location for similar components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection made in this action, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights