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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on June 24, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Continuity/Priority Information
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/342,352, filed June 8, 2021 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,374,901), which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/036,783, filed June 9, 2020. This application is also related to U.S. Patent Application No. 17/342,411, filed June 8, 2021 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,942,805), which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/037,300, filed June 10, 2020.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 24, 2025 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,942,805. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language. Patent independent claims 1, 8, and 15 teach all the limitations of instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and the additional limitations of instant dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are met by patent dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, respectively. Patent claims are narrower and thus teach all the limitations of instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if they overcome the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the combination of limitations presented in the claimed invention.
In particular, none of the prior art disclose at least "determine, based at least in part on a tool type identifier, a safety threshold value; determine, based at least in part on the usage data and the safety threshold value, whether the handheld tool is safely operating or unsafely operating; and cause electrical disconnection of the removable battery from the battery port when the processor determines that the handheld tool is unsafely operating.," among other elements as recited in independent claim 1, and likewise independent claims 8 and 15.
The closest prior art, Myhill (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0071907) discloses identifying tool identification and usage-related information such as time of use and number of holes, along with operating parameters. The collected data can then be used for diagnostic analysis, process control and monitoring, and monitoring component health or consumable status (Myhill at para. [0036]-[0038]). However, Myhill does not disclose determining a safety threshold value based at least in part on a tool type identifier, and then using the usage data and that safety threshold to determine whether the handheld tool is operating safely or unsafely, as required by independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Another relevant prior art, Burch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0222957) (hereinafter "Burch") discloses a "serial number of the tool 105 being stored in memory 225 of tracking unit 150." (Burch at para. [0079]). Thus, Burch discloses reading memory to determine a serial number of a tool. Burch does not disclose determining a safety threshold value based at least in part on a tool type identifier, and then using the usage data and that safety threshold to determine whether the handheld tool is operating safely or unsafely. Likewise, Wenger et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0070924) (hereinafter "Wenger") discloses identifying a tool based on the vibrations caused by the operation of the tool. (Wenger at para. [0049]). However, Wenger does not disclose "determine, based at least in part on a tool type identifier, a safety threshold value," among other elements.
Therefore, none of the prior art references disclose the claimed combination of features recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend, directly or indirectly, from allowable claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and are therefore indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
