DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B comprising claims 10-14 in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Specifically, claim 11 recites that the controller is “configured to determine lock out dates based on the critical date.” However, the original disclosure does not describe a process where a secondary lock out date is determined based on a primary critical date. Rather, the specification describes the critical date as being or defining the lock out date itself (see, e.g., specification ¶ [0026]: “the critical date 645 defines the lock out date”; and ¶ [0031]: “determine critical dates 645 corresponding to the lock out dates”). Therefore, the claim recites a relationship not supported by the original description. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the lock out date as being the critical date, as supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 10 – 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the term “critical date” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim language fails to provide an objective standard for determining what makes a date “critical.” While the specification provides examples of critical dates (e.g., maintenance or lock out dates), relying on the specification to define the boundaries of the claim without positively reciting those limitations in the claim itself would improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11-14, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claim 10.
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 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 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stampfl (US 10,979,786).
Regarding claim 10, Stampfl discloses a power tool (Figure 3, #104) comprising:
a tool housing (Housing shown in figure 3, described in col 5, lines 36-63);
a motor (Figure 6A, #214) positioned within the tool housing (Shown in figure 6A and described in col 6, lines 14-51); and
a controller (Figure 6A, #226) coupled to the motor (Shown in figure 6A, described in col 7, lines 10-53), the controller configured to determine a critical date for the power tool and upload the critical date (Described in col 10, line 24 - col 11, line 3) to an embedded calendar (Figure 6B, #260) of the controller (Shown in figure 6A),
wherein the power tool is inoperable after the critical date occurs (Inoperability of the power tool after a time-based-lock-out feature described in col 10, line 53 - col 11, line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Stampfl further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine lock out dates based on the critical date, wherein the power tool is inoperable on the lock out dates (Date-based lockout described in col 10, line 24 - col 11, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Stampfl further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to send an alert locally on the power tool, wherein the alert locally is an indicator on the power tool (Described in col 10, lines 44-52 wherein a local alert is signaled via indicators #220).
Regarding claim 14, Stampfl further discloses wherein the critical date is determined based on maintenance dates, wherein the maintenance dates are stored maintenance dates embedded from a manufacturer of the power tool (Described in col 10, line 44 - col 11, line 44).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stampfl in view of Hoosainy (US 2019/0043292 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stampfl teaches wherein the controller is further configured to send an alert externally (Described in col 10, lines 44-52 wherein a local alert is signaled via external device #108).
Stampfl does not specifically teach wherein the alert is a push notification on an external electronic device.
Hoosainy teaches wherein the alert is a push notification on an external electronic device (Described in ¶'s [0123], [0125], and [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stampfl to incorporate the teachings of Hoosainy to include the external alert being an external notification with the motivation of ensuring that the operator has reviewed the alert, and is aware of said alert prior to operating the tool, as recognized by Hoosainy in ¶’s [0123], [0125], and [0128].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The other cited prior arts teach relevant aspects of a power tool with means for alerting the user to a sensed condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731