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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 5/23/2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “reciprocating member” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to driver 18;
the “transmission device” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to the assembly of reducer, cam, holder identified by 25; and
the “position detector” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to the assembly of a magnet 32 and hall effect sensor 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang (US 2025/0289106 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a reciprocating tool (100 – Fig. 1) comprising: a reciprocating member (131 – Fig. 4) configured to reciprocate between first dead center and second dead center (para. 0022); an electric motor (160 – Fig. 4) configured to generate a driving force (para. 0176); a transmission device (140 – Fig. 4) configured to transmit the driving force of the electric motor to the reciprocating member at least in a stroke of the reciprocating member from the second dead center to the first dead center (para. 0176); a control circuit (172 – Fig. 4) configured to output at least one drive signal for driving the electric motor (para. 0202); a drive circuit (the circuitry that sends the signal from 172 to 160; note that para. 0202 discloses 172 sending signals to the motor, there must necessarily be a circuit that transmits these signals) configured (i) to receive the at least one drive signal (as noted above, for 172 to send a signal to 160, there must necessarily be a circuit that receives the drive signal), and (ii) to drive the electric motor in accordance with the at least one drive signal received (para. 0205); a position detector (the assembly of 170 and 171 – Fig. 14) configured to output a position detection signal each time the reciprocating member reaches a specified position in at least one reciprocating motion thereof (para. 0202); and a signal cutoff circuit (the circuitry of 172 – Fig. 4 that performs the braking, para. 0205) including wired logic configured to cut off the drive circuit from the at least one drive signal in response to the position detector outputting or having output the position detection signal (para. 0205).
Jiang further discloses:
Claim 2 and 3, the signal cutoff circuit (the circuitry of 172 – Fig. 4 that performs the braking, para. 0205) is configured to be disabled upon receipt of a first logic value, and (ii) to be enabled upon receipt of a second logic value; and the second logic value is opposite to the first logic value (see following note); a manual switch (1131 – Fig. 2) configured to be manually operated by a user of the reciprocating tool (para. 0175); and a latching circuit configured to continue to output the second logic value to the signal cutoff circuit until the manual switch is manually operated in response to the position detector outputting or having output the position detection signal (see following note). Note: Jiang does not expressly disclose how the signal cutoff circuit is disabled and enabled. However, Jiang does disclose that the circuitry is a microcontroller (para. 0169). Essentially every microcontroller performs the functions recited in the claim. A Microcontroller must read a signal to prevent its input pin from floating so they use a pull-down resistor that supplies a continuous voltage of a first logic value when the trigger is not pulled and supplies a continuous voltage of a second logic value when the trigger is pulled.
Claim 4, a pressing member (121 – Fig. 2) configured to be pressed against a workpiece by the user, wherein the manual switch (185 – Fig. 33) is configured to be manually operated by the pressing member being pressed against the workpiece (para. 0239). Note that this rejection relies on an alternate interpretation of Jian in which the manual switch is interpreted to be 185 – Fig. 33.
Claim 5, the position detector (the assembly of 170 and 171 – Fig. 14) includes (i) a magnet (1711 – fig. 15) having a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole (all magnets have two poles) and (ii) a Hall element (170 – Fig. 14) configured to detect the first magnetic pole of the magnet, and is configured such that the Hall element detects the first magnetic pole and outputs the position detection signal in response to the reciprocating member having reached the specified position (para. 0210).
Claim 6, the transmission device (140 – Fig. 4) includes: a cam (142 – Fig. 8 not including 144 – Fig. 9) (i) including an outer circumference having two or more pins (143 – Fig. 9) aligned in a circumferential direction of the cam, and (ii) configured to rotate by the driving force of the electric motor (para. 0177); and a holder (144 – Fig. 9) (i) holding the magnet (see Fig. 14, 171 is on top of 144, hence it is interpreted as a holder for 171), and (ii) configured to rotate with the cam (see Fig. 14, since 171 is disposed on 142, it rotates with 142); and the reciprocating member (131 – Fig. 4) (i) extends between the first dead center and the second dead center (para. 0022), (ii) includes two or more racks (133 – Fig. 8) in its extending direction, and (iii) is configured to be driven from the second dead center to the first dead center by each of the two or more racks engaging with a corresponding one of the two or more pins (para. 0185).
Claim 8, the cam (142 – Fig. 8 not including 144 – Fig. 9) and the holder (144 – Fig. 9) are configured to rotate around a common axis (144 is directly attached to 142 – Fig. 9, hence they revolve around a common axis).
Claim 9, the electric motor (160 – Fig. 4) includes a rotor serving as the common axis (although a rotor is not expressly disclosed, all electric motors have a rotor, it is clear from Fig. 4 that the motor and can are aligned along the same vertical axis).
Claim 10, the holder (144 – Fig. 9) is a non-magnetic member (although the material of the holder is not expressly disclosed, it is clear that the holder is a non-magnetic member otherwise it would interfere with hall sensor).
Claim 15, the specified position corresponds to (i) a stop position to stop the reciprocating member (131 – Fig. 4), and/or (ii) a standby position where the reciprocating member waits for at least one next reciprocating motion of the reciprocating member (para. 0203).
Claim 16, a cylinder (151 – Fig. 4) containing compressed gas therein (para. 0181); and a piston (122 – Fig. 4) that (i) is inside the cylinder, and (ii) urges the reciprocating member (131 – Fig. 4) toward the second dead center by the compressed gas, wherein the reciprocating member is configured to be driven from the first dead center to the second dead center by the piston (para. 0181).
Claim 17, the reciprocating member (131 – Fig. 4) is configured (i) to be positioned at the first dead center in response to the piston being positioned at its top dead center, and (ii) to be positioned at the second dead center in response to the piston being positioned at its bottom dead center (the first dead center is interpreted as the top dead center and the second dead center is interpreted to be the bottom dead center).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations to those above and is rejected in the same manner.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 2025/0289106 A1) in view of Yasutomi (US 2019/0168366 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Jiang discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 6.
However, Jiang does not expressly disclose in which direction the first magnetic pole faces.
Yasutomi teaches a similar transmission device comprising a position detector (the assembly of 84 and 85 – Fig. 10A), wherein the position detector comprises a magnet (85A,B – Fig. 10B) and a hall element (84 – Fig. 10B), wherein the magnet has a first magnetic pole (the right side of 85B – Fig. 10B) and a second magnetic pole (the left side of 85B – Fig. 10B) and the first magnetic pole face outward in a radial direction of the holder (Fig. 10B indicates that the poles are arranged to extend in the radial direction, this is supported by the written description that notes each magnet 85A or 85B has a pole and the hall sensor senses the intensity of the poles). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Yasutomi, that the position detector of Jiang is analgous to the position detector of Jiang since they perform the same function and rely on magnets on a cam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the position detector of Jiang with the position detector of Yasutomi since they are analogous detectors and it is obvious to use known alternatives.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 2025/0289106 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Jiang does not disclose the form of the drive signal.
In this case, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art to use a drive signal that is a pulse-width modulated signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have used a drive signal in the form of a pulse-width modulated signal since Jiang is silent with regard to the form of the signal and using a pulse-width modulates signal is a known solution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12, Jiang simply does not teach the structure of the drive circuit and no known references teach a control circuit having the specific structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
2/19/2026