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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed 04 August 2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification have not been submitted in the amendment filed 04 August 2026.
Amendments to the drawings have been submitted in the amendment filed 04 August 2026.
Drawings
Receipt is acknowledged of replacement sheets of drawings, filed 04 August 2026. The drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esenwein et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2013/0161166) in view of Karlovic (US Patent Publ. No. 2018/0182577).
With respect to claim 1, Esenwein et al. disclose a power tool (angle grinder 38a, fig. 1), comprising at least one switching unit (switching device 10a, switching unit 14a, fig. 2), wherein: the at least one switching unit includes (i) at least one movably mounted switching pawl element (control element 16a, fig. 2), (ii) at least one guide element configured to guide the switching pawl element in a defined movement (guide element 28a, guide element 30a, fig. 2), and (iii) at least one releasing element pivotably mounted on the switching pawl element and configured to unlock a movement lock of the switching pawl element (blocking element 24a swivelably mounted to the control element 16a and operable to release the control element 16a, [0038], figs. 2-3), and the releasing element has at least one pivot axis which extends at least essentially perpendicular to a main direction of movement of the switching pawl element and at least essentially perpendicular to a longitudinal extension direction of the switching pawl element (blocking element 24a has a swivel axis perpendicular to movement direction 48a of the control element 16a and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the control element 16a, fig. 3).
Esenwein et al. fail to disclose the guide element provides at least one actuation locking position for the switching pawl element.
Karlovic discloses a power tool comprising a switch lever 28 including a latching element 40, and a guide element (seating element 42, fig. 2) to provide an actuation locking position for the switch lever 28 (latching element 40 is a latching lug that cooperates with seating element 42 to hold the switch lever 28 in its activated state, [0063]-[0064], fig. 5).
It 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 to modify the Esenwein et al. device to provide an actuation locking position for the switching pawl element as taught by Karlovic, for ergonomic purposes for the user.
With respect to claim 3, Esenwein et al. fail to disclose the guide element is configured and arranged to guide the switching pawl element in at least approximately an L-shape.
Karlovic discloses a power tool comprising a switch lever 28 including a latching element 40, and a guide element (seating element 42, fig. 2) that guides the switch lever 28 in an L-shape (latching element 40 is depicted as an L-shape, figs. 2-5).
It 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 to modify the Esenwein et al. device to provide the guide element to guide the switching pawl element in an L-shape, as taught by Karlovic, to hold the device in an on position for ergonomic purposes for the user.
With respect to claim 4, Esenwein et al. disclose the releasing element is formed by a spring-loaded lever and is configured to move automatically into a blocking position when not actuated (blocking element 24a includes limbs 76a, 78a, and is arranged with spring bias into the blocking position, fig. 2, [0038]).
With respect to claim 5, Esenwein et al. disclose the releasing element (blocking element 24a) has an actuating section (actuating limb 76a, fig. 2) and a blocking section (blocking limb 78a, fig. 2) opposite the actuating section (fig. 2), which in the blocking position is configured and arranged to directly block movement of the switching pawl element (blocking limb 78a contacts stop element 70a to block movement of control element 16a, fig. 2, [0038]).
With respect to claim 6, Esenwein et al. disclose the releasing element has at least one actuating position (the position of blocking element 24a allowing actuation of control element 16a, fig. 3), and wherein the actuating section in the actuating position is at least approximately flush with a grip surface of the switching pawl element (actuating limb 76a is depicted as flush with control surface 32a of control element 16a, fig. 3).
With respect to claim 7, Esenwein et al. disclose a switch housing on which the switching pawl element is movably mounted (control element 16a is mounted on the motor housing 44a, fig. 2) and which has at least one blocking protrusion (stop element 70a formed on the inside of the motor housing 44a, [0038], fig. 2) which, in the blocking position of the releasing element, is configured and arranged to interact with the blocking section of the releasing element (when in the blocking position, the blocking limb 78a interacts with the stop element 70a, fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Esenwein et al. disclose the switching pawl element has at least one guide pin (control element 16a includes engagement element 66a, fig. 2, [0037]) which is configured and arranged to interact with the at least one guide element to guide the switching pawl element (engagement element 64a slides in guide element 30a, fig. 2).
With respect to claim 10, Esenwein et al. disclose a switching unit (switching device 10a, switching unit 14a, fig. 2) comprising (i) at least one movably mounted switching pawl element (control element 16a, fig. 2), (ii) at least one guide element configured to guide the switching pawl element in a defined movement (guide element 28a, guide element 30a, fig. 2), and (iii) at least one releasing element pivotably mounted on the switching pawl element and configured to unlock a movement lock of the switching pawl element (blocking element 24a swivelably mounted to the control element 16a and operable to release the control element 16a, [0038], figs. 2-3), and wherein the releasing element has at least one pivot axis which extends at least essentially perpendicular to a main direction of movement of the switching pawl element and at least essentially perpendicular to a longitudinal extension direction of the switching pawl element (blocking element 24a has a swivel axis perpendicular to movement direction 48a of the control element 16a and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the control element 16a, fig. 3).
Esenwein et al. fail to disclose the guide element provides at least one actuation locking position for the switching pawl element.
Karlovic discloses a power tool comprising a switch lever 28 including a latching element 40, and a guide element (seating element 42, fig. 2) to provide an actuation locking position for the switch lever 28 (latching element 40 is a latching lug that cooperates with seating element 42 to hold the switch lever 28 in its activated state, [0063]-[0064], fig. 5).
It 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 to modify the Esenwein et al. device to provide an actuation locking position for the switching pawl element as taught by Karlovic, for ergonomic purposes for the user.
With respect to claim 11, Esenwein et al. disclose the power tool is an angle grinder (angle grinder 38a, fig. 1, [0030]).
With respect to claim 12, Esenwein et al. disclose the at least one guide element is a cam guide element (guide element 30a guides engagement element 66a, guide element 28a guides engagement element 64a, figs. 2, 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esenwein et al. in view of Karlovic as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Faude et al. (DE 3638952).
With respect to claim 9, Esenwein et al. disclose the switching pawl element has a guide pin 64a opposite the guide pin 66a, and the guide element has a groove 28a, wherein the groove guides the switching pawl element parallel to the extension direction of the switching pawl element (direction of movement 48a, fig. 2).
Esenwein et al. fail to disclose the switching pawl element has at least one groove at an end of the switching pawl element facing away from the guide pin.
Faude et al. disclose a power tool including a switching pawl element (operating device 3, fig. 1) having a groove (elongated hole 12) and a switching mechanism 1 including a bolt 10, such that the groove guides the operating device 3 in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the operating device 3 (direction 9, fig. 1).
It 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 to modify the Esenwein et al. device to replace the guide pin with a groove, as taught by Faude et al., since reversing the position of the groove from the housing to the switching pawl element would provide no particular mechanical disadvantage, would involve only a repositioning of the elements of the device, and since there does not appear to be any particular disclose mechanical advantage to having the groove on either the housing or the switching pawl element. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim amendments and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Esenwein (US Patent Publ. No. 2013/0161166), as applicant notes, claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim 2. The rejection of claim 1 is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Esenwein in view of Karlovic (US Patent Publ. No. 2018/0182577), applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “teaching of Karlovic does not explain how the linear slot (28a) of Esenwein, identified as the claimed "guide element", and the guide pin (28a) that moves in that slot to guide the movement of the pawl element (16a), can be modified to provide an actuation locking position in the linear slot (28a)”, that “[t]here is nothing in Karlovic that can be used by the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear slot (28a) of Esenwein to provide an actuation locking position for the pawl element (16a) of Esenwein”, and that the “Office Action certainly did not provide any guidance regarding what structure of Esenwein would be modified according to Karlovic”.
In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, Karlovic teaches a latching element 40 on a switch lever 28, in which the latching element 40 seats in a seating element 42 on the tool housing. Esenwein teaches a control element 16a on a tool housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the latching element and seating element as suggested by Karlovic, to the control element and tool housing of Esenwein, to provide a locking mechanism for the on position. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding linear slots and guide elements are inapposite, since there would be no need to modify the linear slots or guide elements.
Moreover, applicant urges a narrower interpretation of claim 1 than is reasonable. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01 I. The phrase “the quide element provides at least one actuation locking position for the switching pawl element” requires an “actuation locking position”. Claim 1 does not recite or require any more than a position. Claim 1 does not recite any structure that forms the position, nor any particular slot or guide element. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that “claimed rationale - "for ergonomic purposes for the user - has no relation to the alleged "guide element" (28a) of Esenwein. The Office Action did not provide any guidance as to how modifying the linear slot (28a) of Esenwein satisfies any ergonomic purpose.”
In response, both Esenwein and Karlovic disclose hand-held angle grinders. Karlovic teaches that when the latching element 40 is seated with seating element 42, the switch lever is held in the activated switched-on latching position so that the motor is permanently switched on ([0064]).
Karlovic discloses a power tool comprising a switch lever 28 including a latching element 40, and a guide element (seating element 42, fig. 2) to provide an actuation locking position for the switch lever 28 (latching element 40 is a latching lug that cooperates with seating element 42 to hold the switch lever 28 in its activated state, [0063]-[0064], fig. 5). Karlovic discloses that, without the latching element, to operate the grinder, the switch lever would be “kept in its activated position such as by gripping around with one hand” ([0062]). Thus, the latching element provides an ergonomic benefit by allowing the grinder to be operated without the user having to keep the lever in its activated position by gripping around with one hand.
Accordingly, it 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 to modify the Esenwein et al. device to provide an actuation locking position for the switching pawl element as taught by Karlovic, for ergonomic purposes for the user.
In view of all of the above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Esenwein in view of Karlovic is deemed proper.
Applicant has submitted no specific arguments with respect to independent claim 10, other than that claim 10 should be allowed along with claim 1. The arguments have been fully responded to above.
Applicant has provided no arguments pointing out errors with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 3-9 and 11-12, and these rejections are still deemed proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights