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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites: “the controller is disposed in the grip part so that a first surface of the circuit board, on which the first control circuit and the second control circuit are mounted, faces leftward or rightward.” - it is not clear what is required by this limitation
For purposes of examination, it is understood as follows:
“wherein the first control circuit and the second control circuit are mounted on a first surface of the circuit board”
It is unclear what element is required to “face(s) leftward or rightward” but that seems like the only possible option for orientation of an element. The limitation “the controller is disposed in the grip part” was already set forth in claim 1 and is considered to be repetitive here.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (hereafter “Kato”)(JP 2012-101860) in view of Wierzchon (US 2020/0238493).
With regards to claim 1, Kato discloses a rebar-tying tool comprising:
a first brushless motor (feed motor 2), which feeds a wire that is wound on a reel (1);
a second brushless motor (torsion motor 4), which twists the wire;
a head part, in which the reel (1), the first brushless motor, and the second brushless motor are disposed, as seen in Figure 1;
a grip part, which extends downward from the head part; a foot part, which is disposed downward of the grip part and to which a battery connects (these parts are not labeled but clearly present in Figure 1); and
a controller (control unit 20), which controls the first brushless motor and the second brushless motor. It is unclear where the controller is disposed in the Kato.
Kato does not explicitly disclose where the controller is located. Kato discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is disposed in the grip part. Wierzchon is relied upon to teach a portable hand-held tool including a brushless motor (244), a handle or grip portion (4) where the circuit board (14) and controller (16) are located, as seen in Figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the controller in the grip part, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regards to claim 2, Wierzchon is further relied upon wherein the controller comprises a circuit board (14) which is elongated in a prescribed direction, and is disposed in the grip part so that the circuit board extends in an up-down direction, as seen in Figure 1.
With regards to claim 10, Kato discloses at least one of the first brushless motor and the second brushless motor has a sensor board, which detects rotation of a rotor; and the sensor board has an inverter circuit (21) for motor driving.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wierzchon and Max (JP 2009-274195), as best understood.
Kato discloses two circuits (26, 27) that control the respective motors.
The combination of Kato and Wierzchon discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the first control circuit and the second control circuit are mounted on a first surface of the circuit board. Max is relied upon to teach a rebar machine with control circuits on the same side of circuit board 42 as seen in Figures 5 and 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide both circuits on the same side of the circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill int eh art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wierzchon and Mizuno et al. (hereafter “Mizuno”)(US 2021/0178454).
The combination of Kato and Wierzchon discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein: the first brushless motor comprises a first stator and a first rotor, which is disposed around in the interior of the first stator; the first brushless motor is disposed so that the rotational axis of the first rotor extends in an up-down direction; a first terminal, which connects a plurality of coils of the first stator, is disposed at a rear portion of the first stator; a first sensor board, which detects rotation of the first rotor, is disposed more downward than the first stator; the first terminal and the controller are connected by a first power cable; and the first sensor board and the controller are connected by a first signal cable and wherein: the second brushless motor comprises a second stator and a second rotor, which is disposed around in the interior of the first stator; the second brushless motor is disposed so that the rotational axis of the second rotor extends in a front-rear direction; a second terminal, which connects a plurality of coils of the second stator, is disposed at a lower portion of the second stator; a second sensor board, which detects rotation of the second rotor, is disposed more rearward than the second stator; the second terminal and the controller are connected by a second power cable; and the second sensor board and the controller are connected by a second signal cable. Mizuno is relied upon to teach a rebar machine comprising first terminal corresponding portions that are provided to a rear portion of a stator (174 first stator) of a feed motor (32 first brushless motor), a sensor substrate (178 first sensor substrate) of a Hall sensor (180) is provided on the anti-output side of the stator (174), second terminal corresponding portions are provided to a rear portion of the stator (186 second stator) of a torsion motor (76 second brushless motor),, a sensor substrate (190) of a Hall sensor (192) is provided on the anti-output side of the stator (186), and the feed motor (32), the torsion motor (76), and a control substrate (20 controller) are connected via power supply cables and signal cables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kato’s rebar device with particulars of the motors and the corresponding connections because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wierzchon and Umemoto et al. (hereafter “Umemoto”)(US 2021/0178454).
The combination of Kato and Wierzchon discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller comprises a circuit board, which comprises: an inverter circuit for motor driving; and a heat sink, which is thermally connected to the inverter circuit. Umemoto is relied upon to teach wherein the controller comprises a circuit board, which comprises: an inverter circuit (50) for motor driving; and a heat sink (60), which is thermally connected to the inverter circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kato’s rebar device with a heat sink because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wierzchon and Tanaka (JP 2020-023026).
The combination of Kato and Wierzchon discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising a wireless-communication unit, which is provided in the grip part. Tanaka is relied upon to teach a wireless-communication unit (162) to assist with transferring of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wierzchon’s control unit in the grip part with a wireless-communication unit because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wierzchon in view of McCullough et al. (hereafter “McCullough”)(US Patent 4,794,273).
The combination of Kato and Wierzchon discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for comprising a noise-removing member, which removes electromagnetic noise on an electric-power line that connects at least one of the first brushless motor and the second brushless motor with the controller. McCullough is relied upon to teach a hand tool having a noise filter (131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kato’s device with a noise-removing member because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (hereafter “Kato”)(JP 2012-101860) in view of Mizuno and Max.
Kato discloses a rebar-tying tool comprising:
a first brushless motor (feed motor 2), which feeds a wire that is wound on a reel (1);
a second brushless motor (torsion motor 4), which twists the wire;
a head part, in which the reel (1), the first brushless motor, and the second brushless motor are disposed, as seen in Figure 1;
a grip part, which extends downward from the head part; a foot part, which is disposed downward of the grip part and to which a battery connects (these parts are not labeled but clearly present in Figure 1); and
a controller (control unit 20), which controls the first brushless motor and the second brushless motor. It is unclear where the controller is disposed in the Kato.
Kato does not explicitly disclose where the controller is located. Kato discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the controller is disposed in the foot part. Mizuno is relied upon to teach a rebar machine comprising controller (20) provided in battery or foot portion (10), paragraph 0109 and terminals connected to battery B, at least paragraph 0112. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate Kato’s control unit in the foot part with terminals because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Kato discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a circuit board equipped with a case. Max is relied upon to teach a circuit board equipped with a case (43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kato’s control unit with a case because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 12 are allowed. It is in the opinion of the examiner that the art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein: a first control circuit, which comprises a first gate-driver circuit and a first inverter circuit for controlling the first brushless motor, is mounted on a forward side of the circuit board; and a second control circuit, which comprises a second gate-driver circuit and a second inverter circuit for controlling the second brushless motor, is mounted on a rearward side of the circuit board” in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations set forth in the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
