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 Amendments
The amendments filed 06/20/2025 have been entered.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 2 and 8 are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant states on pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks that Pearson is driven by a hydraulic motor.
In response, Pearson does disclose “a hydraulic or other type of drive motor” [col. 1, lines 54-55]. The other references seek to modify the hydraulic motor with an electric motor.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the contention of the Office Actions that the Pearson reference shows something is substantially equal in diameter is improper as the drawings are not evidence of actual proportions when the drawings are not to scale.
In response, MPEP 2125 states that “[d]rawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928).
Applicant cites “PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE.” This alludes to MPEP 2125, Section II, which states:
“When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) (“We disagree with the Solicitor’s conclusion, reached by a comparison of the relative dimensions of appellant’s and Bauer’s [the reference’s] drawing figures, that Bauer ‘clearly points to the use of a chime length of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel.’ This ignores the fact that Bauer does not disclose that his drawings are to scale. ... However, we agree with the Solicitor that Bauer’s teaching that whiskey losses are influenced by the distance the liquor needs to ‘traverse the pores of the wood’ (albeit in reference to the thickness of the barrelhead)” would have suggested the desirability of an increased chime length to one of ordinary skill in the art bent on further reducing whiskey losses.” 569 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335-36.)”
As an example, one might argue that the Applicant doesn’t show “said drive has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element for fixing the cutting disc to said cutting disc holder” because “PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS.” Applicant “does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions.” However, it would be reasonable to conclude that the drawing, while it doesn’t show exact dimensions/proportions, it conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that “said drive has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element for fixing the cutting disc to said cutting disc holder” because that’s what is shown.
What Applicant is asking the examiner to consider in the arguments is that the prior art doesn’t show or make obvious “said drive has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element for fixing the cutting disc to said cutting disc holder.” Applicant is also asking the Examiner to exclude all art that doesn’t explicitly state “said drive has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element for fixing the cutting disc to said cutting disc holder” or an equivalent thereof because any prior art can be argued that they do not show this, as even if they show this, it might be possible that it does not show this because the proportions could be the opposite of what is shown. It is the examiner’s position that this is an unreasonable argument for the following reasons:
Absent of the prior art saying that these are not the real proportions, there would still be no motivation to make and use the prior art device using different relative proportions, which may have unintended consequences as other proportions are not shown. For one to say that the prior art doesn’t show the claimed dimensions, one must persuasively argue that the dimensions the prior shows are not the claimed dimensions.
While Figure 4 of the prior seems to use a representative box and would be more persuasive in what Applicant is arguing, Figure 2 is clearly a representation of the actual device. The only way for Figure 2 to not be proportionate would have been for the drafter to have made a mistake in the drawing. Additionally, as this also aligns with what Figures 4, it would convey that the inventor of the prior art, at the very least, desires these proportions.
The section of the MPEP cited uses examples of actual sizes, where one measured the drawings to obtain an actual size. The word “proportion” according to Merriam-Webster has two definitions that may cause confusion in how this section is interpreted. The first is a relation of parts to each other or to the whole. This would appear to be what Applicant is arguing. However, the other definition is size and/or dimension. This would appear to be what that section of the MPEP is discussing. Given what is previously stated above, it would be less rational to consider proportions, as in how parts relate to each other or to the whole, to need to be shown as required, but also, to the point Applicant is attempting to make in the argument, that they can never really be shown because “PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE” [emphasis added]. Scale is a proportion between two sets of dimensions, meaning that this implies that sizes/measurements in the drawings are not actual evidence of actual sizes/measurements if not to scale, where “not to scale” means the drawing is larger or smaller than real life and the opposite, “to scale” would mean one inch in the drawing means one inch in real life.
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 8 of the Remarks that the prior art of Pearson does not unambiguosly disclose a drive having a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element because Pearson’s Figures 2, 3, and 4 do not show the hydraulic motor 12 in a clear and consistent manner.
In response, it is not entirely clear what is being argued here. There is no requirement for consistency between drawings. In fact, many times prior art will include many different embodiments or alternatives in the drawings and, therefore, there might be consistency between a majority of the parts, but not a consistency between some of the parts. Consistency does not disqualify something as to what it teaches.
As to the argument about ambiguity and clarity, it appears that the drawings are clear and unambiguous. If Applicant is arguing that these are ambiguous as to the physical dimensions, there is no disagreement there. One cannot measure the drawings and determine, with certainty, the actual physical dimension of the actual device. However, as stated above, one would still be able to see how the parts are connected and relate to each other, including their relative proportions to each other. What Applicant appears to be arguing is that, upon scaling up or down, the prior art scaled one down by a different ratio than the other part, adding to confusion. However, there is nothing saying that the prior art made a mistake in scaling up/down.
To be clear, there is a difference between getting out a ruler, measuring an exact value of one object, measuring an exact value of the other object, and comparing those values to see whether one is a larger value than the other, as opposed to just looking at the drawings and seeing whether one object is bigger than the other or smaller than the other. If one cannot readily tell, then one would say the two objects are substantially the same size, all without taking a single measurement. One is not “deriving” a specific value, but simply looking at whether one thing is larger or smaller than the other. If one cannot tell whether one thing is larger or smaller than the other, then it would be reasonable to say that they are substantially the same size, as the rejection has done.
One might argue, as Applicant is seemingly doing, that when you’re comparing sizes, you’re actually “measuring” the sizes. However, one can look at two objects and see one as being larger or smaller without taking any actual measurements.
This argument seems to hinge on the idea that one cannot measure the parts of a drawing to obtain the sizes and compare the sizes because measuring the sizes would be wrong. While there is some merit to it in being improper to measure sizes in a drawing, that is not the case here.
Likewise, Applicant stating that one object has to be bigger or the same size as another object in the claims doesn’t require one to apply a ruler to the drawings to determine, for certain, whether that’s the case. One can simply look to see that one is larger than the other or substantially the same size in the drawings.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that “[a]n electric drive motor requires a stator and an associated rotor and is more complicated in design than the hydraulic motor 12 of Pearson and would require greater dimensions than the hydraulic motor 12 of Pearson. Applicant also mentions, again, that the sizes from Figure 4 are “not-to-scale.”
In response, the examiner will again note that “not-to-scale” does not mean that the proportions of parts in relation to each other are wrong. The phrase “to-scale” means 1 inch equals 1 inch. The phrase “not-to-scale” means that 1 inch does not equal 1 inch. This is not the same thing as proportionality. When one scales up or down, the sizes change, but not with respect to each other. A 1:12 scale model doesn’t mean that certain parts of the model were scaled down, but, rather, that all parts were scaled to 1:12. So, yes, one cannot obtain sizes from the Figures because we don’t know if they were scaled or to what scale they are scaled. One cannot assume the drawing is the same size as the actual device. But this does not mean that the proportions to each other are assumed to be wrong. Just because we don’t assume to know the scale doesn’t mean that we assume a disproportionality between parts.
As to the electric drive motor argument itself, it is not a contention of the Examiner that, in the past, or even typically now, electric motors of that power have been generally larger and hydraulic motors have been a way to achieve large power in a relatively small package. New technology is required to make smaller and smaller motors and those motors are then imparted into new devices. For example, a person may patent a motor that may then be sold to someone who then incorporates that into a power tool. The motor itself is a new idea, but wanting to incorporate smaller and lighter motors into tools, especially handheld tools, is not a new idea.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the prior art does not disclose or teach a power density of at least 1.0 kW/kg.
In response, the action errs in stating that “Lutz teaches a heavy-duty tool having an energy storage unit with a power density of greater than 0.5kW/kg. The examiner would note that the rejection goes on to state that the basis for rejection is based primarily on Lutz teaching that a high output power is advantageous (“high output power”) [Lutz; paragraph 0005] and, therefore, it would have been obvious to make the motor have as high output power as possible, thus making obvious the range. However, as the rejection errs in stating that the prior art of Lutz teaches this, then the rejection is held improper and a new rejection is applied herein. A new rejection is applied herein with a more reasoned rejection of the claimed subject matter. Since this would change the grounds of rejection, resulting in an inherently new grounds of rejection, then the rejection herein is considered NON-FINAL.
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:
“a cooling system for cooling at least one of said electric drive motor or a control unit.” Applicant identifies the cooling system as numeral ‘34’ and states “[t]he abrasive cutter 1 comprises an active cooling system 34 for cooling the drive 4 and/or the control unit 26. The active cooling system 34 produced a movement of a cooling medium L. The cooling medium L in the present exemplary embodiment is air. The cooling system 34 comprises an inflow channel 35, a fan wheel 36 and an outflow channel 37.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0087]. Therefore, this is interpreted as “an inflow channel, a fan wheel, and an outflow channel,” and equivalents thereof.
“a control unit for controlling said drive in dependence on a determined temperature” in claim 11. The control unit is identified as numeral ‘26’ and Applicant describes the control unit’s operation in paragraph 0086 of the Application Publication, where the control unit compares measurements values with temperature limit values in order to determine whether the measured temperature exceeds the limits. Applicant shows that the sensor for measuring the temperature is separate from the control unit. Applicant does not include any drawings detailing the software aspect of the control unit. Applicant does not state what specific types of units the “control unit” can be. Therefore, the “control unit” could be anything from a manual user panel that allows a user to manually adjust/control the drive based on when the operator deems the temperature is getting too warm, to a CPU that is connected to a sensor and the drive that automatically corrects the drive in regards to temperature. Therefore, this will be considered as a structure capable controlling (i.e. modifying the operation of) the drive.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed method steps of claims 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed “a control unit for controlling said drive in dependence on a determined temperature” is indefinite.
First, there is no sensor unit for determining a temperature, so “a determined temperature” in and of itself is indefinite in regards to what is determining temperature.
Second, “a control unit for controlling said drive in dependence on a [temperature]” is unclear what this would require as there is no temperature input. In essence, what seems to be claimed is a control unit for controlling said drive, but Applicant adds on “in dependence on a determined temperature”. The issue is, structurally, it’s unclear how this “control unit for controlling said drive in dependence on a determined temperature” would differ structurally from a “control unit for controlling said drive”. While it is understood that the intention is to control the drive based on determined temperature, it’s unclear how the control unit accomplishes that except with a user input which, in a broad sense, is simply a control unit for controlling said drive.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will just consider this to be “a control unit for controlling said drive.”
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(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) and further in view of Biffard (US-20140091654).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Pearson (US-6,042,461) discloses an abrasive cutter for cutting through a rail of a track, the abrasive cutter comprising:
a base body (arms 13, 14);
a cutting disc holder (machine screw 40) for mounting a cutting disc (cutting tool 26) (Figs. 1 and 2); and
a drive (motor 12) for driving the cutting disc holder (machine screw 40) in rotation about a rotational axis (“hydraulic motor 12 includes a drive shaft 22 on which the flange assembly of the present invention, generally indicated by the numeral 24, is mounted for securing the cutting tool 26 in the form of a circular saw blade to a drive shaft”) [Pearson; col. 2, lines 51-55], wherein:
said drive (motor 12) is directly coupled to the cutting disc holder (drive shaft 22 and machine screw 40) (Fig. 4);
said drive (motor 12) includes a motor (motor 12):
said motor (motor 12) has a drive axis aligned with the rotational axis (Fig. 4);
said drive (motor 12) has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element (flanges 24, 30) for fixing the cutting disc (cutting tool 26) to said cutting disc holder (machine screw 40) (Fig. 4 shows them both being substantially equal in diameter); and
Pearson fails to disclose an electric motor, wherein said electric drive motor has a power density PSpez, with PSpez >= 1.0 Kw/kg.
However, Lutz (US-2016/0036089) teaches a heavy duty tool (“the heavy-duty hand-held power tool appliance constitutes an angle grinder, a cut-off grinder, a hammer drill, a chain saw, a core-hole drill and/or a router”) [Lutz; paragraph 0004] having an energy storage unit (“the energy storage unit”) [Lutz; paragraph 0005]. Lutz also teaches that it is advantageous to have a high output power (“In a further design of the disclosure, it is proposed that the energy storage unit have at least one lithium-air cell. This makes it possible to achieve a particularly long battery operating time with, at the same time, a high output power.”) [Lutz; paragraph 0005]. Since Lutz is to power tools, and since Pearson teaches that other types of drive motors can be used (“The inner mounting plate or flange includes an integrally formed spindle having a tapered bore that mates with a tapered drive shaft on a hydraulic or other type of drive motor.”) [Pearson; col. 1, lines 51-55], it therefore would’ve been obvious to use the teaching of Lutz to modify the motor of Pearson to be electric and having a high power density, wherein a high power density would be considered to include and be more than 0.5 Kw/kg, in order to cut through heavy duty materials [Lutz; paragraph 0005].
The prior art of Biffard (US-20140091654) teaches a brushless electric drive motor (“a brushless permanent magnet motor due to its design and operation”) [Biffard; paragraph 0005] (Figs. 1-3) (“has a power density PSpez, with PSpez >= 1.0 Kw/kg. (“This example implementation of the electric motor described herein was found to have a peak output power of 38 kW with a weight of 17 kg thereby providing a power density of 2.2 kW/kg.”) [Biffard; paragraph 0043]. Since a motor having 1.0 Kw/kg power density is known, and since Lutz teaches that it would be obvious to use a motor with a high power output, it therefor would’ve been obvious to use a relatively powerful motor, such as taught by Biffard, which has a power density of 2.2 kW/kg order to provide a high power output for the motor of Pearson, as taught by Lutz [Lutz; paragraph 0005].
To further elaborate on “said drive (motor 12) has a maximum transverse extent that is at most equal to a diameter of at least one clamping element (flanges 24, 30)”, while the prior art does not discuss the diameter of the motor and the diameter of the holder, explicitly, Figure 4 shows these are substantially equal as one cannot readily tell which is bigger or smaller, thus looking substantially equal and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reproducing the prior art of Pearson would, based on Figure 4, would find it obvious to make these substantially equal in diameter, as shown in Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a smaller motor, particularly for a handheld tool, given that size increases both weight and maneuverability. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the amount of power and limit the amount of size of the motor (“an improved electric motor that maximizes active motive material for a given motor size while still achieving other dictated requirements such as being sealed from outside elements, etc.”), thus making obvious making the motor even smaller than what is shown in Pearson, as taught by Biffard.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1 (under an alternative interpretation, where the “cutting disc holder” is considered as a part of the drive shaft 22), wherein said cutting disc holder (a first part of the drive shaft 22) is integrally formed with a drive shaft (a second part of drive shaft 22 different from the first part) of said electric drive motor (motor 10) (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, wherein said drive motor (motor 10) has a drive shaft (drive shaft 22) and wherein said drive shaft (drive shaft 22) and said cutting disc holder (machine screw 40) are formed in two pieces (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, wherein said drive (motor 10) is arranged on said base body (arms 13 and 14) (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Pearson discloses a method for cutting through a rail of a track, the method comprising:
providing an abrasive cutter according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and
cutting through the rail (rail 17) with the cutting disc that is driven in rotation by the abrasive cutter (Fig. 1) (“a rail saw incorporating the flange assembly or cutting tool mounting assembly of the invention is illustrated in connection with use of a circular saw blade to cut a rail of a railroad track” [Pearson; col. 2, lines 35-38].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) and Biffard (US-20140091654), and further in view of Umemura (WO2013084655) and Moores (US-4,402,241).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, wherein said drive (motor 10) has a housing (outside of motor 10), but fails to disclose wherein a first bearing is supported on said housing of said drive and a second bearing is supported on said base body.
As for the first bearing, Umemura (WO2013084655) teaches a drive (111) having a housing (105), wherein a first bearing (bearing 133). It is known that the purpose of rotational bearings are to support a rotatable element within a fixed element such as wherein a driveshaft is rotatably mounted within a motor, as shown in Umemura. Pearson is silent as to the inside of the motor, but would have found it obvious to support the driveshaft within the motor for rotation with a bearing, as shown in Umemura, in order to properly support the driveshaft within the housing (see Figure 3 of Umemura).
As for the second bearing, Moores (US-4,402,241) teaches a drive (motor 15) and a second bearing (bearing 24) supported on a base body (the body surrounding and contacting the bearing 24 as shown in Figure 3). As discussed, bearings are meant to support a rotating part within a fixed part and, therefore, it would be obvious to add extra support for the driveshaft of Pearson between the base body (arms 13, 14) of Pearson and the driveshaft (drive shaft 22) of Pearson, as taught by Moores (“an output spindle 22 journaled in bearings 23 and 24 mounted in the housing”) [Moores; col. 2, lines 25-27].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) in view of Biffard (US-20140091654), and further in view of Umemura (WO2013084655).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said drive has a housing, and wherein a first bearing and a second bearing are supported on said housing of said drive.
However, Umemura (WO2013084655) teaches a drive (111) having a housing (105), wherein a first bearing (bearing 133) and a second bearing (131) are supported on said housing (105) of said drive (111). It is known that the purpose of rotational bearings are to support a rotatable element within a fixed element such as wherein a driveshaft is rotatably mounted within a motor, as shown in Umemura. Pearson is silent as to the inside of the motor, but would have found it obvious to support the driveshaft within the motor for rotation with a bearing at a proximal end of the driveshaft within the drive housing, and a bearing at a distal end of the driveshaft within the housing, as shown in Umemura, in order to properly support the driveshaft within the housing (see Figure 3 of Umemura).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) and Biffard (US-20140091654), and further in view of Boeck (US-2014/0242890).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one temperature sensor for determining a temperature of said drive and a temperature of a control unit.
However, Boeck (US-2014/0242890) teaches at least one temperature sensor (sensor unit 14) for determining a temperature of a drive (drive unit 18) and a temperature of a control unit (electronics unit 42) (“A first sensor element 52 is intended for sensing a temperature of the drive unit 18. Alternatively or additionally, it is also conceivable that the sensor unit 14 is intended for sensing a temperature of the electronics unit 42.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0028]. Since Boeck is pertinent to grinding devices, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a temperature sensor as taught by Boeck into the device of Pearson in order to monitor the temperatures of the drive and a control unit, respectively, in order to prevent overheating and/or damage (“If a prescribed maximum period t.sub.max, which is stored in the open-loop control unit 58, is exceeded without the boost mode having been ended on account of the temperature exceeding the limit, the boost mode is automatically ended. As a result, damage to the drive unit 18 can be dependably prevented.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a control unit for controlling said drive in dependence on a determine temperature.
However, Boeck teaches at least one temperature sensor (sensor unit 14) for determining a temperature of a drive (drive unit 18) and a temperature of a control unit (electronics unit 42) (“A first sensor element 52 is intended for sensing a temperature of the drive unit 18. Alternatively or additionally, it is also conceivable that the sensor unit 14 is intended for sensing a temperature of the electronics unit 42.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0028], further comprising a control unit (electronics unit 42) for controlling said drive (drive unit 18) in dependence on a determined temperature (“The open-loop control unit 58 is intended for controlling the boost mode unit 10 in an open-loop manner in dependence on the operating parameter formed by the temperature of the drive unit 18. The open-loop control unit 58 is also intended for controlling the boost mode unit 10 in an open-loop manner in dependence on the further operating parameter sensed by the time sensing element 56.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0029]. Since Boeck is pertinent to grinding devices, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a temperature sensor as taught by Boeck into the device of Pearson in order to monitor the temperatures of the drive and a control unit, respectively, in order to prevent overheating and/or damage (“If a prescribed maximum period t.sub.max, which is stored in the open-loop control unit 58, is exceeded without the boost mode having been ended on account of the temperature exceeding the limit, the boost mode is automatically ended. As a result, damage to the drive unit 18 can be dependably prevented.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 15 (New), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit (electronics unit 42) configured to operate said electric drive motor at least temporarily with a power PB with P < PB < 4*P, wherein P is a nominal power of said electric drive motor.
However, Boeck (US-2014/0242890) teaches boosting the electric drive motor to exceed the nominal power to about 150% and up to 180%, or 1.5*P to 1.8*P (“The motor power output P.sub.boost of the drive unit 18 in the boost mode significantly exceeds the nominal power output P.sub.nom. The motor power output P.sub.boost of the drive unit 18 in the boost mode is about 150% of the nominal power output P.sub.nom. Alternatively or additionally, it is also conceivable that the motor power output P.sub.boost of the drive unit 18 in the boost mode is for a short time about 180% of the nominal power output P.sub.nom.”) [Boeck; paragraph 0031]. Boeck teaches that this is a boost mode in order to operate at a higher motor power than the conventional operating mode. Since Boeck is pertinent to devices such as Pearson’s, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a boost mode and operate with a power within the claimed range in order to provide a motor that can be temporarily made to operate at a higher power than nominal or conventional, as taught by Boeck [Boeck; paragraph 0031].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) and Biffard (US-20140091654), and further in view of Wolperding (US-2016/0199958).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a cooling system for cooling at least one of said electric drive motor or a control unit.
However, Wolperding (US-2016/0199958) teaches a cooling system (fan 46) for cooling at least one of an electric drive motor or a control unit (“Since, in the case of portable power tools 10 having electronic commutated electric motors 20, the electronics system 32 is more powerful and designed so as to be of a greater size and volume than in the case of brush motors, cooling is increasingly important, and results in the need for optimum cooling. The cooling may be realized actively or passively. In the case of passive cooling, the thermal energy is removed by convection. In the case of active cooling, the thermal energy of the components to be cooled is removed by means of a cooling system.”) [Wolperding; paragraph 0056]. Since Wolperding is pertinent to grinding devices such as Pearson’s, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a cooling system as taught by Wolperding to the device of Pearson in order to prevent overheating [Wolperding; paragraph 0056].
Claim(s) 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US-6,042,461) in view of Lutz (US-2016/0036089) and Biffard (US-20140091654), and further in view of Forster (US-2015/0256111).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Pearson discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to perform at least one of the following method steps:
reducing an emittable power of said electric drive motor when a determined temperature exceeds a first temperature limit value; or
shutting down said electric said electric drive motor when a determined temperature exceeds a second temperature limit value.
However, Forster (US-2015/0256111) teaches controller (“a motor control system 80”) reducing an emittable power of said electric drive motor when a determined temperature exceeds a first temperature limit value TG1 (over 100 degrees Celsius) (“The controller may also be configured to receive a signal indicative of temperature from the temperature sensor. During operation, the controller monitors the temperature and further operates to adjust the cycle-by-cycle current limit in accordance with the measured temperature as shown for example in FIG. 12. In this example, the controller enforces a 20 Amp current limit so long as the temperature remains below 100 Celsius. Once the motor temperature exceeds 100 Celsius, the controller lowers the cycle-by-cycle current limit and thereby lowers the power that can be delivered by the tool. In practice, the user will experience the reduction in tool performance and back off the force being applied to the tool which in turn allows the motor speed to increase.”) [Forster; paragraph 0105]. Since Forster teaches using temperature in power tools prevents overheating, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pearson with a temperature sensor and controller, as taught by Forster, in order to prevent overheating [Forster; paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 16 (New), Pearson, as modified by Forster, discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 12, wherein said second temperature limit value TG2 is greater than said first temperature limit value TG1; and wherein 800C <= 120 0C (100 degrees Celsius) [Forster; paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 17 (New), Pearson, as modified by Forster, discloses the abrasive cutter according to claim 12, wherein said control unit is configured to reduce said emittable power of said electric drive motor to less than a nominal power P of said electric drive motor (it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the power that the motor normally operates at would be, at most, the nominal power since this is the power which is maintained for continuous use of the tool) (“The controller may also be configured to receive a signal indicative of temperature from the temperature sensor. During operation, the controller monitors the temperature and further operates to adjust the cycle-by-cycle current limit in accordance with the measured temperature as shown for example in FIG. 12. In this example, the controller enforces a 20 Amp current limit so long as the temperature remains below 100 Celsius. Once the motor temperature exceeds 100 Celsius, the controller lowers the cycle-by-cycle current limit and thereby lowers the power that can be delivered by the tool. In practice, the user will experience the reduction in tool performance and back off the force being applied to the tool which in turn allows the motor speed to increase.”) [Forster; paragraph 0105].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723