DETAILED ACTION
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755)
As to claim 1, Asakura teaches a rebar tying tool comprising a reel with feed wire (Fig. 2, item 16) and a first motor (Fig. 3, item 34) which feeds the wire and a second motor (Fig. 7, item 76) which twists the wire. Asakura teaches a head part (Fig. 2, item 4) in which the second motor is disposed (compare Fig. 7 and Fig. 2). Asakura teaches a downward extending grip part (Fig. 1, item 6), foot part (Fig. 1, item 10) downward of the grip part, and coupling part (Fig. 1, item 12) forward of the grip part which couples the head part (Fig. 1, item 4) to the foot part (Fig. 1, item 10). Asakura teaches that the coupling part contains the reel and first motor (Fig. 2, item 38 and 16). Asakura teaches a controller (Fig. 2, item 20) which controls the two motors and is interpreted as being disposed at least partly in the grip part (especially near item marker 10b) and at least partly in the foot part. Even in the alternative that the Asakura controller cannot be considered to be disposed in the grip part, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to locate the controller in any part of the Asakura device including the grip part, head part, foot part, or coupling part.
Asakura is silent to the motors being “brushless”.
Kawai teaches a motor which is brushless ([0083]), and in the combination with Asakura, one would have found it obvious to use the Kawai brushless motor for both the first motor and second motor of Asakura. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kawai brushless motor into Asakura in this manner because: (a) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute of one power tool motor for another with the predictable result that the Asakura device operates in the same manner already disclosed, and/or (b) Asakura teaches/suggests motors for use in a power tool but is silent to the particular characteristics of the motor (whether brushless or not), however, Kawai provides a motor for a power tool within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar use in a power tool in Kawai.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and further in view of McCullough (US 4,794,273). Asakura and Kawai teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 2, Asakura teaches wiring, but is silent to cables connecting the controller to the motors.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with Asakura, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to the two motors ([0052] and [0084]) could be replaced by cables in the same manner to connect to the Asakura controller. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 4, Asakura already teaches a first motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 3, item 36 and Fig. 4). Kawai provides a brushless motor in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor from the back of the rotor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]). The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 5, Asakura already teaches a second motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 2, item 30). Kawai provides a (second) brushless motor in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), a plurality of coils (31), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]) and would obviously be located at any position exposed to the rotor whether more forward or behind the second stator. The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and further in view of Tokunaga (US 20070180959) and McCullough (US 4,794,273). Asakura and Kawai teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 3, Asakura and Kawai appear to be silent to an operation and indicator part disposed in the head part, and a cable used to connect the operation and indicator to a controller by a cable.
Tokunaga teaches that an indicator part interpreted to be an operation-and-indicator part is disposed in the head (26), and is inherently connected to the controller ([0051]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Tokunaga light into the modified Asakura device motivated by providing the status of the tool to the user. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in indicating the status to the user.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
Claims 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755), and further in view of Nakamoto (US 20200169148). Asakura and Kawai teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 16, Kawai provides a brushless motor in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]). Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]). Asakura and Kawai are silent to an inverter circuit.
Nakamoto teaches ([0072] and [0102]) an inverter circuit for controlling electric current to a brushless motor with the inverter circuit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature from Nakamoto into the modified Asakura device motivated by providing the ability to control electric current flowing through each phase winding of a brushless motor ([0046]) with a reasonable expectation of success since both Kawai and Nakamoto teach brushless motors.
As to claim 17, Asakura is interpreted to provide a circuit board, but is silent to an inverter circuit for driving a motor and heat sink thermally connected to the inverter circuit. Nakamoto teaches ([0072] and [0102]) an inverter circuit for controlling electric current to a brushless motor with the inverter circuit connected to a heat sink (90).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Nakamoto into the modified Asakura device motivated by providing the ability to control electric current flowing through each phase winding of a brushless motor ([0046]) and facilitating heat dissipation ([0055]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755), and further in view of Suda (US 20150340921). Asakura and Kawai teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 18, Asakura and Kawai are silent to a wireless communication unit in the grip part.
Suda teaches a wireless communication board in a grip part ([0105]; Fig. 3, item 30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Suda wireless communication unit into Asakura motivated by establishing wireless communication with an external communication terminal such as a cell phone. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success since the Suda grip is configurated similar to the Asakura grip already shown in the prior art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755), and further in view of Matsunaga (US 20110187211). Asakura and Kawai teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 19, Asakura teaches motors and Kawai teaches brushless motors, but the references appear to be silent to the noise removing member on an electric power line.
Matsunaga teaches a power source smoothing capacitor ([0036], item 43C) for use with a brushless motor (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the power source smoothing capacity from Matsunaga into the modified Asakura device because Kawai already provides a brushless motor and Matsunaga specifically teaches/suggests the smoothing capacitor for use with brushless motors, and Kawai is within the scope of the Matsunaga teaching/suggestion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and Matsuno (US 20170218631).
As to claim 6, Asakura teaches a rebar tying tool comprising a reel with feed wire (Fig. 2, item 16) and a first motor (Fig. 3, item 34) which feeds the wire and a second motor (Fig. 7, item 76) which twists the wire. Asakura teaches a head part (Fig. 2, item 4) in which the second motor is disposed (compare Fig. 7 and Fig. 2). Asakura teaches a downward extending grip part (Fig. 1, item 6), foot part (Fig. 1, item 10) downward of the grip part, and coupling part (Fig. 1, item 12) forward of the grip part which couples the head part (Fig. 1, item 4) to the foot part (Fig. 1, item 10). Asakura teaches that the coupling part contains the reel and first motor (Fig. 2, item 38 and 16). Asakura teaches a controller (Fig. 2, item 20) which controls the two motors. While Asakura does not specifically depict the controller between the first motor and second motor in an up-down direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to locate the controller in any part of the Asakura device including the grip part, head part, foot part, coupling part, or at a location between the two motors in an up-down direction since the device does not depend on any specific controller location.
Asakura is silent to (i) the motors being “brushless”, and in the event that it is ultimately determined that the controller location is not obvious over Asakura alone, than Asakura would be silent to (ii) the claimed controller location.
Regarding (i), Kawai teaches a motor which is brushless ([0083]), and in the combination with Asakura, one would have found it obvious to use the Kawai brushless motor for both the first motor and second motor of Asakura. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kawai brushless motor into Asakura in this manner because: (a) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute of one power tool motor for another with the predictable result that the Asakura device operates in the same manner already disclosed, and/or (b) Asakura teaches/suggests motors for use in a power tool but is silent to the particular characteristics of the motor (whether brushless or not), however, Kawai provides a motor for a power tool within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar use in a power tool in Kawai.
Regarding (ii), Matsuno teaches that it is known to position a controller (Fig. 25, item 180) at a location at the bottom of the head unit. In the combination of Matsuno with Asakura, positioning a controller in the same location in Asakura would position the controller between the first motor and second motor in an up-down direction. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Matsuo controller location into Asakura because (a) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute location for a controller in a power tool device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known location for another and the result (successful control of motors in a power tool)
Claim 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and Matsuno (US 20170218631), and further in view of McCullough (US 4,794,273). Asakura, Kawai, and Matsuno teach the subject matter of claim 6 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 7, Asakura teaches a controller and Kawai teaches a brushless motor in the rejection of claim 6 above. Asakura, Kawai, and Matsuno appear to be silent to a first cable used to connect these features and the cable connected to a lower surface of the circuit board.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a circuit board using a pin. The location where the pin is connected to the circuit board is interpreted to be a lower surface of the circuit board. In the combination of McCullough with Asakura, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to the two motors ([0052] and [0084]) could be replaced by cables in the same manner to connect to two pins at surfaces of the Asakura controller. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cable/pin connections to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 9, Asakura already teaches a first motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 3, item 36 and Fig. 4). Kawai provides a brushless motor in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor from the back of the rotor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]). The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 10, Asakura already teaches a second motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 2, item 30). Kawai provides a (second) brushless motor in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), a plurality of coils (31), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator (more forward, more rear being the only two choices) as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]) and would obviously be located at any position exposed to the rotor whether more forward or behind the second stator. The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and Matsuno (US 20170218631), and further in view of Tokunaga (US 20070180959) and McCullough (US 4,794,273). Asakura, Kawai, and Matsuno teach the subject matter of claim 6 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 8, Asakura and Kawai appear to be silent to an operation and indicator part disposed in the head part, and a cable used to connect the operation and indicator to an upper surface of a controller by a cable.
Tokunaga teaches that an indicator part interpreted to be an operation-and-indicator part is disposed in the head (26), and is inherently connected to the controller ([0051]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Tokunaga light into the modified Asakura device motivated by providing the status of the tool to the user. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in indicating the status to the user.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. One would have recognized that since there are only two surfaces of a circuit board, selection of either location from this finite list would have been obvious. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and McCullough (US 4,794,273).
As to claim 11, Asakura teaches a rebar tying tool comprising a reel with feed wire (Fig. 2, item 16) and a first motor (Fig. 3, item 34) which feeds the wire and a second motor (Fig. 7, item 76) which twists the wire. Asakura teaches a head part (Fig. 2, item 4) in which the second motor is disposed (compare Fig. 7 and Fig. 2). Asakura teaches a downward extending grip part (Fig. 1, item 6), foot part (Fig. 1, item 10) downward of the grip part, and coupling part (Fig. 1, item 12) forward of the grip part which couples the head part (Fig. 1, item 4) to the foot part (Fig. 1, item 10). Asakura teaches that the coupling part contains the reel and first motor (Fig. 2, item 38 and 16). Asakura teaches a control board (Fig. 2, item 20) inherently or obviously including a circuit board which is connected by “wiring” to the two motors ([0052] and [0084]).
Asakura is silent to (i) the motors being “brushless”, and (ii) cables connecting two surfaces of the circuit board to motors.
Regarding (i), Kawai teaches a motor which is brushless ([0083]), and in the combination with Asakura, one would have found it obvious to use the Kawai brushless motor for both the first motor and second motor of Asakura. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kawai brushless motor into Asakura in this manner because: (a) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute of one power tool motor for another with the predictable result that the Asakura device operates in the same manner already disclosed, and/or (b) Asakura teaches/suggests motors for use in a power tool but is silent to the particular characteristics of the motor (whether brushless or not), however, Kawai provides a motor for a power tool within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar use in a power tool in Kawai.
Regarding (ii), McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a circuit board using a pin. The location where the pin is connected to the circuit board is interpreted to be a surface of the circuit board. In the combination of McCullough with Asakura, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to the two motors ([0052] and [0084]) could be replaced by cables in the same manner to connect to two pins at two surfaces of the Asakura controller. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cable/pin connections to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 12, Asakura does not specifically teach the controller disposed in the head part, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to locate the controller in any part of the Asakura device including the grip part, head part, foot part, or coupling part. As to claim 14, Asakura already teaches a first motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 3, item 36 and Fig. 4). Kawai provides a brushless motor in the rejection of claim 11 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor from the back of the rotor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]). The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
As to claim 15, Asakura already teaches a second motor oriented in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 2, item 30). Kawai provides a (second) brushless motor in the rejection of claim 11 above, and Kawai teaches that a brushless motor includes a stator and a rotor inside the stator ([0083]), a plurality of coils (31), and a coil terminal (38) which could be obviously disposed at any portion of the stator (more forward, more rear being the only two choices) as an obvious matter of design choice. Kawai teaches a sensor board ([0087]) which detects rotation of a motor using a magnet in the rotor ([0087]) and would obviously be located at any position exposed to the rotor whether more forward or behind the second stator. The sensor board and controller and terminal and controller would necessarily be electrically connected, although Asakura and Kawai are both silent to a “cable”.
McCullough teaches a cable (instead of a wire) may be used to electrically connect to a controller. In the combination of McCullough with the modified Asakura device, each of the Asakura wires which connect the controller to other components could obviously be replaced by cables. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature from McCullough into Asakura because one would have viewed cables to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the wires already disclosed by Asakura, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (still electrical connection between a controller and controlled components) in the same manner already provided by Asakura.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and McCullough (US 4,794,273), and further in view of Kasuya (US 20110114347).
As to claim 12, Asakura does not specifically teach a controller disposed in the head part.
Kasuya teaches a controller (Fig. 1, item 135) disposed in a head part (Fig. 1) of a handheld tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the controller in the head from Kasuya into Asakura because this is an obvious interchangeable substitute location for the grip/foot controller location already provided by Asakura. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in simply locating the controller in a different part of the device because the controller location is unrelated to operation of the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and McCullough (US 4,794,273), and further in view of Tokunaga (US 20070180959). Asakura, Kawai, and McCullough teach the subject matter of claim 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 13, McCullough provides to the combination a teaching that it is obvious to couple a first surface of a circuit board to a component using a cable, but the references appear to be silent to an operation and indicator part disposed in the head part.
Tokunaga teaches that an indicator part interpreted to be an operation-and-indicator part is disposed in a head part of a power tool (26), and is inherently connected to the controller ([0051]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Tokunaga light into the modified Asakura device motivated by providing the status of the tool to the user, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success in indicating the status to the user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 20210002911) in view of Kawai (US 20210060755) and Numata (US 20190077004).
As to claim 20, Asakura teaches a rebar tying tool comprising a reel with feed wire (Fig. 2, item 16) and a first motor (Fig. 3, item 34) which feeds the wire and a second motor (Fig. 7, item 76) which twists the wire. Asakura teaches a head part (Fig. 2, item 4) in which the second motor is disposed (compare Fig. 7 and Fig. 2). Asakura teaches a downward extending grip part (Fig. 1, item 6), foot part (Fig. 1, item 10) downward of the grip part, and coupling part (Fig. 1, item 12) forward of the grip part which couples the head part (Fig. 1, item 4) to the foot part (Fig. 1, item 10). Asakura teaches that the coupling part contains the reel and first motor (Fig. 2, item 38 and 16). Asakura teaches a controller (Fig. 2, item 20) which controls the two motors and inherently or obviously including a circuit board. The Asakura controller is interpreted as being disposed at least partly in the grip part and at least partly in the foot part. Even in the alternative that the Asakura controller cannot be considered to be disposed in the foot part, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to locate the controller in any part of the Asakura device including the grip part, head part, foot part, or coupling part.
Asakura is silent to (i) the motors being “brushless”, and (ii) the controller comprising a controller case housing the circuit board and a terminal connecting the battery and circuit board.
Regarding (i), Kawai teaches a motor which is brushless ([0083]), and in the combination with Asakura, one would have found it obvious to use the Kawai brushless motor for both the first motor and second motor of Asakura. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kawai brushless motor into Asakura in this manner because: (a) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute of one power tool motor for another with the predictable result that the Asakura device operates in the same manner already disclosed, and/or (b) Asakura teaches/suggests motors for use in a power tool but is silent to the particular characteristics of the motor (whether brushless or not), however, Kawai provides a motor for a power tool within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar use in a power tool in Kawai.
Regarding (ii), Numata teaches a controller that includes a circuit board and a controller case that houses the circuit board. Numata teaches a battery ([0074]), and in order for the controller to be powered, Numata inherently/necessarily includes terminals that connect the battery to the controller circuit board. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the controller case and/or controller as a whole into the Asakura device motivated by protecting the circuit board of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success, or alternatively, as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the controller configuration already taught by Asakura for predictably controlling a similar power tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights