DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 5th 2025.
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-20 in the reply filed on December 5th 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 15th 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 13 and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the phrase “…at least a portion of the driver blade…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the driver blade is positively recited or not.
Claim 17, recites the phrase “…wherein the first threshold is about 75% of the retraction cycle...” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how much of the retraction cycle is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pomeroy et al. (CA 2 985 110 A1; “Pomeroy”).
Regarding claim 11, Pomeroy discloses a method of controlling an electric motor (46) of a power tool (10; para. [0053]) comprising:
initiating a retraction cycle by controlling the electric motor (46) to move a driver blade (30) of the power tool (10) from a first position to a second position (para. [0028]);
determining a position of the driver blade (30) during the retraction cycle (para. [0054]);
bypassing, in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding a first threshold position, at least one of a first switch (178) and a second switch being activated (para. [0057]-[0059]), and a braking cycle not yet having started, the braking cycle (para. [0057]-[0059]); and
initiating a new drive cycle to move the driver blade (30) from the second position to the first position (para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Pomeroy discloses wherein the power tool (10) includes one or more sensors (130, 202) configured to detect at least a portion of the driver blade (30; para. [0035], [0041]), wherein the method further comprises determining the position of the driver blade (30) based on signals from the one or more sensors (130; para. [0035], [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Pomeroy discloses further comprising: initiating, in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding the first threshold position (para. [0054] discloses the first threshold being between 50-90% of the fully retracted position of the driver blade. In the instant case, it is deemed to 50% of retracted position), the braking cycle at the electric motor (46, when the driver blade exceeds 50% of the retracted position, to the ready position, the motor halts (para. [0054])); and aborting the braking cycle in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding a second threshold position (para. [0056] discloses the intermediate position (the position between the retracted position and the driven position). This position is deemed to be the second threshold).
Regarding claim 16, Pomeroy discloses wherein the second threshold (the second threshold is deemed to be an intermediate position, as described in para. [0056]-[0057]) is less than the first threshold.
Regarding claim 17, Pomeroy discloses wherein the first threshold is about 75% of the retraction cycle (para. [0054]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomeroy et al. (CA 2 985 110 A1; “Pomeroy”) in view of Ueda (US 2018/0133877).
Regarding claim 12, Pomeroy discloses the power tool (10).
Pomeroy fails to discloses wherein the power tool includes one or more sensors configured to detect revolutions of the electric motor, and wherein the method further comprises determining the position of the driver blade based on signals from the one or more sensors. (para. [0057]).
However, Ueda teaches a power tool (10) includes a sensor configured to detect revolutions of the electric motor (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the power tool and driver blade of Pomeroy with the sensor configured to detect revolutions of the electric motor of Ueda, in order to control the braking and actuation of the motor (para. [0057]).
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomeroy et al. (CA 2 985 110 A1; “Pomeroy”) in view of Miller et al. (US 2024/0253196; “Miller”).
Regarding claim 14, Pomeroy discloses the power tool (10), a lifter (98) configured to engage with a driver blade (30; Fig. 3).
Pomeroy fails to disclose wherein the power tool includes one or more sensors configured to detect a position of a lifter, wherein the method further comprises determining the position of the driver blade based on signals from the one or more sensors.
However, Miller teaches a power tool (10) includes a sensor (120) configured to detect a position of a lifter (66; para. [0030]), wherein the method further comprises determining the position of the driver blade (26) based on signals from the one or more sensors (120; para. [0033] discloses the position of the lifter corresponding to the position of the driver blade. As the lifter moves through a nominal driver blade drop, the driver is near the top-dead-center (TDC) position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the power tool of Pomeroy with the sensor configured to detect a position of the lifter of Miller, in order to fix a jam in the fire-reload cycle (para. [0033]).
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomeroy et al. (CA 2 985 110 A1; “Pomeroy”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2024/0091918; “Yang”).
Regarding claim 18, Pomeroy discloses further comprising: initiating, in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding the first threshold position (para. [0054] discloses the first threshold being between 50-90% of the fully retracted position of the driver blade. In the instant case, it is deemed to 50% of retracted position), the braking cycle at the electric motor (46, when the driver blade exceeds 50% of the retracted position, to the ready position, the motor halts (para. [0054]), the braking cycle at the electric motor.
Pomeroy fails to disclose aborting the braking cycle in response to detecting a trigger switch being activated before a safety switch.
However, Yang teaches activating the motor when the trigger switch (46) is depressed (para. [0122], [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the step of initiating of Pomeroy with the aborting braking step of Yang, in order to safely actuate the tool.
13. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomeroy et al. (CA 2 985 110 A1; “Pomeroy”) in view of Tsai et al. (EP 3 766 638 A1; “Tsai”).
Regarding claim 19, Pomeroy discloses the method.
Pomeroy fails to discloses further comprising: monitoring an operating mode selector to determine whether the power tool is in a first operating mode or a second operating mode; initiating, in response to determining that the power tool is in the first operating mode, a drive cycle in response to detecting a safety switch being activated before a trigger switch; and initiating, in response to determining that the power tool is in the second operating mode, the drive cycle in response to detecting the trigger switch being activated before the safety switch.
However, Tsai teaches monitoring an operating mode selector (22, 25, 27) to determine whether the power tool is in a first operating mode (single firing mode) or a second operating mode (successive firing mode; para. [0028]); initiating, in response to determining that a power tool (1) is in the first operating mode (single firing mode), a drive cycle in response to detecting a safety switch being activated before a trigger switch (para. [0028]); and initiating, in response to determining that the power tool (1) is in the second operating mode (successive firing mode), the drive cycle in response to detecting the trigger switch being activated before the safety switch (para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the method of Pomeroy with the monitoring step of Tsai, in order to generate different control flows based on the monitoring (para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Pomeroy discloses further comprising: initiating, in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding the first threshold position (para. [0054] discloses the first threshold being between 50-90% of the fully retracted position of the driver blade. In the instant case, it is deemed to 50% of retracted position), the braking cycle at the electric motor (46, when the driver blade exceeds 50% of the retracted position, to the ready position, the motor halts (para. [0054])); and aborting the braking cycle in response to the position of the driver blade (30) exceeding a second threshold position (para. [0056] discloses the intermediate position (the position between the retracted position and the driven position). This position is deemed to be the second threshold).
Pomeroy fails to discloses aborting the braking cycle to the power tool being in the second operating mode.
However, Tsai teaches the power tool (1) being actuated in the second operating mode (successive firing mode; para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the method of Pomeroy with the aborting step of Tsai, in order to generate different control flows based on the mode of operation (para. [0028]).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
15. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731