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
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 21-40 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, lines 3-4 recite “the second value related to the drive request signal is less than the first value related to the current limit signal”. However, “the second value” and “the first value” lack antecedent basis within the claim and therefore render the claims indefinite. It is unclear if this is referring to the “drive speed” mentioned in Claim 21 or a different value.
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) and provide haptic feedback to a user of the power tool (30; see explanation below) 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); further note that the reduction in PWM duty followed by the motor stoppage will readily provide some form of haptic feedback to the user as the vibration/reaction forces due to the motor speed changing will readily be felt by the user).
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) and provide haptic feedback to a user of the power tool (30; see explanation below) 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); further note that the reduction in PWM duty followed by the motor stoppage will readily provide some form of haptic feedback to the user as the vibration/reaction forces due to the motor speed changing will readily be felt by the user).
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 21, 23, and 24 are allowed.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, none of the prior art references, alone or in combination disclose a power tool comprising an electronic processor configured to carry out the combination of functions as claimed. Such functions including
-generating a current limit signal based on the power source type and an available current limit of the power source, wherein the available current limit changes when the power source depletes during operation of the power tool,
comparing a drive request signal and the current limit signal corresponding to the available current limit of the power source,
determining 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
controlling 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.
These features in combination with the other claimed features of Claim 21 render Claim 21 allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that none of the applied references disclose the capability of the processor to “upon determining that a detected load exceeds a power source current available limit, control the power switching network to simulate bog-down and provide haptic feedback to a user of the power tool.”, Examiner respectfully asserts that “haptic feedback” can be reasonably interpreted as any type of feedback or change that can be sensed by touch as “haptic” is commonly defined as “relating to or based on the sense of touch” (per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haptic). Therefore, mere changing of motor speed or deactivation of the motor itself will readily provide a haptic feedback. Therefore, a changing of motor operation readily provides a haptic feedback by the controller/processor whether the haptic feedback is “purposeful” or not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 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 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights