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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 / Response to Amendment
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Claims 21-40 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 24, line 5, “and different motor” should instead be “and a different motor”.
-Claim 33, line 9, “coupled to a power source” should instead be “coupled to the power source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, lines 19-24 recite “determine that the current limit signal is less than the drive request signal based on the comparison, and control the power switching network based on the current limit signal to simulate bog-down in response to determining that the current limit signal is less than the drive request signal, wherein the power switching network causes the motor to simulate bog-down when the drive request signal is greater than the current limit signal.”. These limitations lack sufficient support within the original disclosure and therefore constitute new matter. Specifically, there is not sufficient support for determining that the current limit signal is less than the drive request signal based on the comparison. When referring to the specification, the signals themselves are not determined to be less than or greater than. Instead it is determined that “the second drive speed of the motor corresponding to the current limit signal is less than the first drive speed of the motor corresponding to the drive request signal based on the comparison” (see Paragraphs 0010, 0037). It is the speeds that are determined to less than or greater than one another, not necessarily a value of the signals.
Claims 22-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as the claims depend from Claim 21.
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.
Claims 25-27, 30-35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (USPGPUB 2010/0307782), in view of Linehan (US PGPUB 2013/0255980-previously cited), and alternatively, in further view of Tamezane (US PGPUB 2011/0109273).
Regarding Claim 25, Iwata discloses power tool (drill 30; Figure 1) comprising:
a power source (8);
a motor (2) selectively coupled to the power source (8), the motor including a rotor (2a) and stator windings (2c, 2d; Figure 1);
an actuator (switch trigger 7) configured to generate a drive request signal (“PWM duty” signal per Para. 0103, 0115, 0130 “the pulse-width modulation duty (PWM duty) of a PWM signal which drives the semiconductor switching elements 3a of the inverter circuit part 3 is varied in accordance with the trigger pressed distance”);
a power switching network (inverter circuit part 3; Figure 3) configured to selectively couple the power source (8) to the stator windings (2c, 2d) of the motor (2; Para. 0096); and
an electronic processor (control circuit 4 including computing part 20) coupled to the power source (8), the actuator (7), and the power switching network (3), the electronic processor (4) configured to:
determine current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0128-0129),
detect a load (via drive current; Para. 0114, 0132) on the power tool (30), wherein the load (drive current) on the power tool (30) is related to an extent of actuation of the actuator (7; note the current being drawn/load on the tool is readily dependent on the actuation amount of the trigger 7 which changes the PWM signal which readily changes the amount current being drawn/load applied to the tool; see Paras. 0126, 0174 for reference),
compare the load (drive current “I”) related to the extent of actuation of the actuator (7) to the current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0132; see step “407” in Figure 6 or Figure 15),
determine that the load (drive current “I”) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0132, 0135; see step “408” in Figure 6 of Figure 15), and
control the power switching network (3) to simulate bog-down (“lock state” per step 409 in Figures 6 and 15; Para. 0132, 0167) in response to determining that the load (drive current “I”) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”), wherein the power switching network (3) causes the motor (2) to simulate bog-down when the load (“I”) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”; see Para. 0021, 0059, 0138-0139 which outline “lock allowable range” “Ra1” or “Ra2” shown in Figure 7 and further see Figures 15, 16 and Para. 0174 which outline a reduction of PWM duty in response to exceeding a current threshold Is (based on Ir)).
However, Iwata fails to explicitly disclose the processor being configured to determine a power source type of the power source, the power source type being a type of battery pack that is the power source, and the current limit is determined, by the processor, as a power source current available limit of the power source based on the power source type, the power source current available limit operable to limit power provided to the power switching network, wherein the power source current available limit changes when the power source depletes during operation of the power tool.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Linehan which teaches a power tool (10; Figure 1) comprising a processor (controller 50) which is configured to define performance limits for a tool based on the tool type and the battery in the tool (see Para. 0005) wherein the processor (50) is configured to:
determine a power source type (from identifier 26; Figure 2) of the power source (battery 25), the power source type being a type of battery pack (25) that is the power source (battery 25; Para. 0055, 0059);
determine a power source current available limit of the power source (25) based on the power source type (of 25), the power source current available limit operable to limit power provided to a power switching network (of motor 15; Figure 1C), wherein the power source current available limit changes when the power source (25) depletes during operation of the power tool (10; see Para. 0054, 0055 which outlines “The battery pack identifier 26 can cooperate with the battery's voltage and current output or capacity to generate a signal that the universal controller 50 uses to determine the battery characteristics based on pre-defined safety limits and operational loads, duty cycles, limits and the like” which clearly outlines determining a limit (at least implying a current limit) of the battery based on type and capacity (thereby charge); Para. 0064 outlines “Operational limits can be defined for each tool and specific battery model combination. Where scalar factors are used based on the resistor ID values, the one with the lowest threshold can determined the scalar used, e.g., it can take priority (battery vs. tool ID)” and therefore the current limit is chosen from the lower of the tool and the battery; see also Para. 0083-0084),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the processor of Iwata to be configured to determine the power source type and determine/set the current limit as a power source current available limit which changes as it depletes as taught by Linehan. By modifying Iwata in this manner, the processor/controller can be utilized with different batteries and limits of performance to ensure a safe operation can be readily set as taught by Linehan (Para. 0084).
Note that Paragraph 0055 of Linehan outlines that the identifier of the battery cooperates with the voltage, current and capacity thereof to generate a signal for the tool controller/processor and since the voltage, current and capacity will change as the battery depletes, it can be readily implied that the signal corresponding to the limits generated will also change as the battery is depleted.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Linehan does not readily disclose the power source current available limit changes when the power source (25) depletes during operation of the power tool, attention can be brought to the teachings of Tamezane which teaches a battery (100; Figure 1) for use with a power tool (see Para. 0004) wherein a power source current available limit is calculated based on remaining capacities, current amount, and temperatures of the batteries (see Para. 0005, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the power sources of Iwata to be able to alter the power source current available limits (see Linehan) as the power source is depleted as taught by Tamezane in order to protect the battery and suppress deterioration of batteries as outlined by Tamezane (Para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 26, Iwata, as modified, discloses the drive request signal (“PWM duty” signal) indicates a desired speed of the motor (2) based on an amount in which the actuator (7) is depressed (Para. 0103, 0115, 0130); and wherein the electronic processor (4) is configured to control the power switching network (3) to simulate bog-down (in lock state) by decreasing a speed of the motor (2) to a non-zero value that is less than the desired speed of the motor (see Para. 0174 which outlines decreasing the PWM duty when locked state is detected).
Regarding Claim 27, Iwata, as modified, discloses the electronic processor (4) is configured to decrease the speed of the motor (2) in proportion to an amount that the load (“I”) is above the power source current available limit (“Ir”; note although not explicitly disclosed, the processor is capable of changing the PWM duty cycle and therefore is capable of decreasing the speed as claimed).
Regarding Claim 30, Iwata, as modified, discloses the electronic processor (4) is configured to:
continue to monitor the load (current “I”) and control the power switching network (4) to simulate bog- down (at 409; i.e. Figure 8);
determine that the load (“I”) has decreased to be less than the power source current available limit (“Ir” as modified); and
control, in response to determining that the load (“I”) has decreased to be less than the power source current available limit (“Ir” as modified), the power switching network (3) to cease simulating bog-down (cease lock state 409) and operate in accordance with the drive request signal generated by the actuator (7; see Figure 8 as after lock detection 409, as long as Trock<Tstop, the current is compared again).
Regarding Claim 31, Iwata, as modified, discloses the power source current available limit changes based on the power source type (see Para. 0055, 0059 of Linehan).
Regarding Claim 32, Iwata, as modified, discloses the electronic processor (4) is configured to detect the load on the power tool (30) by detecting a current level of the motor (2; via current detection circuit 18; see abstract).
Regarding Claim 33, Iwata discloses a method of driving a power tool (30; Figure 1), the method comprising:
determining, with an electronic processor (4 including 20; Figure 3), a current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0128-0129);
detecting, with the electronic processor (4), a load (drive current “I”) on the power tool (30; Para. 0114, 0132), the power tool including a motor (2) selectively coupled to a power source (8) and including a rotor (2a) and stator windings (2c, 2d), wherein a power switching network (3) selectively couples the power source (8) to the stator windings (2c, 2d) of the motor (8) in response to a drive request signal (PWM duty signal) generated by an actuator (7; per Para. 0103, 0115, 0130), wherein the load (drive current “I”) on the power tool (30) is related to an extent of actuation of the actuator (7; per Para. 0103, 0115, 0130);
comparing, with the electronic processor (4), the load (“I”) related to the extent of actuation of the actuator (7) to the current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0132; see step “407” in Figure 6 or Figure 15),
determining, with the electronic processor (4), that the load (drive current “I”) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”; Para. 0132, 0135; see step “408” in Figure 6 of Figure 15); and
controlling, with the electronic processor (4), the power switching network (3) to simulate bog-down (“lock state” per step 409 in Figures 6 and 15; Para. 0132, 0167) in response to determining that the load (drive current I) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”), wherein the power switching network (3) causes the motor (2) to simulate bog-down when the load (“I”) is greater than the current limit (“Ir”; see Para. 0021, 0059, 0138-0139 which outline “lock allowable range” “Ra1” or “Ra2” shown in Figure 7 and further see Figures 15, 16 and Para. 0174 which outline a reduction of PWM duty in response to exceeding a current threshold Is (based on Ir)).
However, Iwata fails to disclose
determining, with the electronic processor (4 including 20; Figure 3), a power source type of a power source, the power source type being a type of battery pack that is the power source;
determining, with the electronic processor, a power source current available limit of the power source based on the power source type, the power source current available limit operable to limit power provided to a power switching network, wherein the power source current available limit changes when the power source depletes during operation of the power tool.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Linehan which teaches a method of operating a power tool (10; Figure 1) including:
determining, with an electronic processor (controller 50), a power source type (from identifier 26; Figure 2) of the power source (battery 25), the power source type being a type of battery pack (25) that is the power source (battery 25; Para. 0055, 0059);
determining, with an electronic processor (controller 50), a power source current available limit of the power source (25) based on the power source type (of 25), the power source current available limit operable to limit power provided to a power switching network (of motor 15; Figure 1C), wherein the power source current available limit changes when the power source (25) depletes during operation of the power tool (10; see Para. 0054, 0055 which outlines “The battery pack identifier 26 can cooperate with the battery's voltage and current output or capacity to generate a signal that the universal controller 50 uses to determine the battery characteristics based on pre-defined safety limits and operational loads, duty cycles, limits and the like” which clearly outlines determining a limit (at least implying a current limit) of the battery based on type and capacity (thereby charge); Para. 0064 outlines “Operational limits can be defined for each tool and specific battery model combination. Where scalar factors are used based on the resistor ID values, the one with the lowest threshold can determined the scalar used, e.g., it can take priority (battery vs. tool ID)” and therefore the current limit is chosen from the lower of the tool and the battery; see also Para. 0083-0084),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Iwata such that the processor determines the power source type and determines/sets the current limit as a power source current available limit which changes as it depletes as taught by Linehan. By modifying Iwata in this manner, the processor/controller can be utilized with different batteries and limits of performance to ensure a safe operation can be readily set as taught by Linehan (Para. 0084).
Note that Paragraph 0055 of Linehan outlines that the identifier of the battery cooperates with the voltage, current and capacity thereof to generate a signal for the tool controller/processor and since the voltage, current and capacity will change as the battery depletes, it can be readily implied that the signal corresponding to the limits generated will also change as the battery is depleted.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Linehan does not readily disclose the power source current available limit changes when the power source (25) depletes during operation of the power tool, attention can be brought to the teachings of Tamezane which teaches a battery (100; Figure 1) for use with a power tool (see Para. 0004) wherein a power source current available limit is calculated based on remaining capacities, current amount, and temperatures of the batteries (see Para. 0005, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the power sources of Iwata to be able to alter the power source current available limits (see Linehan) as the power source is depleted as taught by Tamezane in order to protect the battery and suppress deterioration of batteries as outlined by Tamezane (Para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 34, Iwata, as modified, discloses the drive request signal (“PWM duty” signal) indicates a desired speed of the motor (2) based on an amount in which the actuator (7) is depressed (Para. 0103, 0115, 0130); and controlling, with electronic processor (4), the power switching network (3) to simulate bog-down (in lock state) by decreasing a speed of the motor (2) to a non-zero value that is less than the desired speed of the motor (see Para. 0174 which outlines decreasing the PWM duty when locked state is detected).
Regarding Claim 35, Iwata, as modified, discloses controlling the power switching network (3) to simulate bog-down by decreasing the speed of the motor (2) to the non-zero value that is less than the desired speed of the motor (2; i.e. Para. 0174) but does not disclose decreasing the speed of the motor (2) in proportion to an amount that the load is above the power source current available limit. However, this can be readily implied and/or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to decrease the speed of the motor (based on PWM signals) of Iwata to an extent proportional to the amount the measured load is above the limit in order to achieve a current level at or below the limit as speed of the motor and the load are readily proportional to one another.
Regarding Claim 38, Iwata, as modified, discloses continuing to monitor the load (current “I”) and control the power switching network (3) to simulate bog- down with the processor (4 at 409; i.e. Figure 8);
determining, with the processor (4) that the load (“I”) has decreased to be less than the power source current available limit (“Ir” as modified); and
control, in response to determining that the load (“I”) has decreased to be less than the power source current available limit (“Ir” as modified), the power switching network (3) to cease simulating bog-down (cease lock state 409) and operate in accordance with the drive request signal generated by the actuator (7; see Figure 8 as after lock detection 409, as long as Trock<Tstop, the current is compared again).
Regarding Claim 39, Iwata, as modified, discloses the power source current available limit changes based on the power source type (see Para. 0055, 0059 of Linehan).
Regarding Claim 40, Iwata, as modified, discloses detecting the load on the power tool (30) by detecting, with the processor (4), a current level of the motor (2; via current detection circuit 18; see abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter / Examiner’s Note
Claims 28, 29, 36 and 37 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.
Regarding Claims 28, 29, 36 and 37, none of the prior art references, alone or in combination, anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically the none of the prior art references outlined above recite the method/ability of the processor to determine that the load is greater than a second current limit greater than the power source current available limit or determine the load is greater than the power source current available limit for a predetermined period of time and control the switching network to simulate stalling in response to such determinations by controlling the switching network to oscillate between motor speeds (i.e. different PWM signals) to provide a haptic feedback to the user in the manner as claimed.
These features in combination with the features of Claims 25 and 33, in which the claims depend from, render the claimed inventions allowable subject matter
Regarding Claim 21, see below for a proposed amendment to Claim 21 which would appear to overcome the 112(a) rejection above and would render the claim allowable.
21. (Proposed) A power tool comprising:
a power source;
a motor selectively coupled to the power source;
an actuator configured to generate a drive request signal;
a power switching network configured to selectively couple the power source to the motor; and
an electronic processor coupled to the power source, the actuator, and the power switching network, the electronic processor configured to:
determine a power source type of the power source, the power source type being a type of battery pack that is the power source,
receive the drive request signal from the actuator,
generate a current limit signal based on the power source type and an available current limit of the power source, the current limit signal being a signal for limiting power provided to the power switching network, wherein the available current limit changes when the power source depletes during operation of the power tool,
compare the drive request signal and the current limit signal corresponding to the available current limit of the power source,
determine a second drive speed of the motor corresponding to the current limit signal is less than a first drive speed of the motor corresponding to the drive request signal based on the comparison,
and
control the power switching network based on the current limit signal to simulate bog-down in response to determining that the second drive speed of the motor corresponding to the current limit signal is less than the first drive speed of the motor corresponding to the drive request signal, wherein the power switching network causes the motor to simulate bog-down when the first drive speed of the motor is greater than the second drive speed .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 2/7/2026