Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
In view of the applicant Appeal Brief filed on 10/14/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 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 10:
The Claim reads “implementing in the power tool a rotational speed graduation of the motor in an electronic form, a circumferential speed at the tool of the power tool being the same as a rotational speed of the motor changes during the rotational speed graduation”. This is unclear; as indicated on the specification, the “circumferential speed at the tool” is the circumferential speed at the surface of the drill bit, and the claimed “rotational speed graduation” involves replacing the drill bit for another of a different diameter, so in no way the circumferential speed at the tool is going to be the same since the tool is being removed. The Examiner is interpreting the claim as that after the replacement of the tool of the power tool is completed and the power tool is in full operation and at a desired operating speed again, the circumferential speed at the tool is the same as before.
The Claim also includes the limitation: “the rotational speed spread being defined as the quotient of a maximum rotational speed and a minimum rotational speed of the motor”. This in unclear because the minimum rotational speed of a motor would be zero and in that case the spread would be infinite. The Examiner would consider that the maximum rotational speed and a minimum rotational speed of the motor correspond to target or desired rotational speeds of the motor, a high one and a low one.
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 10 to 14 and 16 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 2003/0196824) in view of Drilling Speeds and Feeds ( Drilling Speeds and Feeds, EML2322L – MAE Design and Manufacturing Laboratory, 23/10/2018).
Regarding Claims 10, 13, 14, 18 and 20 (See rejection 112):
Gass discloses a method for operating a power tool and a power toll, the power tool having a tool and a motor, the motor being a brushless electric motor (Figures 1 and 4, paragraph 0042, Tool 10 would be the power tool with a keyless chuck 28 carrying a drill bit 92 considered the tool, Paragraph 0064 motor 20 is a brushless motor), the method comprising: implementing in the power tool a rotational speed graduation of the motor in an electronic form (Figure 12, paragraph 0107, max Speed is set at screen on Figure 12 via setting 272 for a corresponding value 276 by scrolling through a menu of available speeds with push buttons 224-228 or by inputting a selected value digit by digit); note that Gass discloses that the motor is directly connected to the keyless chuck, it does not have a mechanical transmission (Paragraph 0086, In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 9, the armature surrounds the chuck, and they are joined to rotate as a unit), so the speed of the motor is the same speed of the chuck.
Gass discloses that instead of the relatively high speed shown in FIG. 12, it should be understood that a relatively low maximum speed may be entered as well, and it is well known that brushless motors the rotation speed can be set at ranges of 0 to 100% of the rated rotation speed of the motor (Figure 13 shows ramps 284, 285 and 286 from a minimum of 0 to maximum speed); but Gass does not specifically mention setting a “maximum rotational speed” and a “minimum rotational speed” of the motor, having a rotational spread of 2, the rotational speed spread being defined as the quotient of the “maximum rotational speed” and the “minimum rotational speed of the motor”.
Drilling Speeds and Feeds teaches that the peripheral or circumferential speed (velocity) and the rotational speed (velocity) of the drill tool are related as shown in the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also teaches the use of recommended peripheral velocities according to the material being drilled:
PNG
media_image2.png
923
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
So, according to the equation 1 above, to keep the same peripheral or circumferential speed using a different diameter bit.
(N of the first tool) x (Diameter of the first tool)= (N of the second tool) x (Diameter of the second tool)
So, the following relationship applies:
(N of the first tool)/ (N of the second tool)= (Diameter of the second tool)/ (Diameter of the first tool)
Note that the relationship is the same as the claimed “rotational speed spread” that will be identified as RSS and to the “diameter spread” that will be identified as DS; and using the notations:
N of the first tool will be identified as NFT
N of the second tool will be identified as NST
Diameter of the second tool will be identified as DST
Diameter of the first tool will be identified as DFT
To keep the same peripheral or circumferential speed when drilling a material, the relationship can be rewritten as:
RSS= NFT/NST= DST/DFT, where also RSS= DS.
Therefore, if the rotational velocity of the second tool (NST) is smaller than the rotational velocity of the first tool (NFT) by a factor of RSS, to keep the same peripheral or circumferential speed then the Diameter of the second tool (DST) has to be larger than the Diameter of the first tool (DFT) by the same factor RSS, that correspond to DS too.
As an example, a rotational speed spread larger than 2, such as 2.1 is obtained by using a second tool of a diameter calculated by multiplying the diameter of the first tool by 2.1 while at the same time setting the rotational velocity of the second tool at a value obtained by dividing the rotational velocity of the tool by 2.1, to keep the same peripheral or circumferential speed when drilling the same material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gass the teachings of Drilling Speeds and Feeds and have a rotational spread of greater than 2 as defined, by reducing the rotational speed of the bit as when replacing the drill bit for another of a larger diameter or to increase the rotational speed of the bit when replacing the drill bit for another of a reduced diameter by following the relationship
(N of the first tool)/ (N of the second tool)= (Diameter of the second tool)/ (Diameter of the first tool)
as indicated above, so the peripheral speed for the drill bit over the material being drilled stays the same; note that the rotational spread can be also obtained as the quotient of the “larger diameter drill bit” and the “smaller diameter drill bit”, corresponding to a “diameter spread” and the two drill bits can be considered a “group of tools”
Regarding Claims 11 and 12:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Gass discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Gass does not specifically disclose wherein the circumferential speed at the tool of the power tool lies in a range of 1 to 10 m/s or on a range of 2 to 6 m/s.
As mentioned above, Table 1 of Drilling Speeds and Feeds mentions recommended speeds on feet/min for different materials. Since 1 meter/sec is about 196 feet/min, the table shows circumferential speeds over 1 meter/sec and using carbide cutting tools speeds over 2 meters/sec are shown. Also, as the material is softer the recommended speed increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gass the teachings of Drilling Speeds and Feeds and have circumferential speeds in the range of 2 to 6 meters/second or 1 to 10 meters/second depending on the material being drilled and the material of the drill bit.
Regarding Claim 16:
Gass discloses that the circumferential speed at a cutting or grinding body of the tool of the power tool remains the same (Paragraph 103, on trigger mode, as the trigger is actuated, work element 22 begins to spin, and the rate of rotation of the work element continues to increase to a maximum speed of rotation when the trigger is fully actuated, the speed is maintained as long as the trigger is fully actuated).
Regarding Claims 17 and 19:
Gass discloses that the tool is a drill bit (Figures 1 and 4, paragraph 0042, Tool 10 would be the power tool with a keyless chuck 28 carrying a drill bit 92 considered the tool).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 2003/0196824) in view of Drilling Speeds and Feeds ( Drilling Speeds and Feeds, EML2322L – MAE Design and Manufacturing Laboratory, 23/10/2018) and further in view of FAQ: How to choose a safety factor so a motor design lasts? (Zak Khan, 30/12/2016, will be called Safety factor).
Regarding Claim 22:
As discussed for Claim 10 above, Gass discloses the invention as claimed.
Gass does not specifically disclose it the motor is overdimensioned to be designed for a higher power than necessary for intended applications and tool diameter working ranges.
Safety factor teaches that most documentation and motor selection guides state that engineers should choose a safety factor of around 1.5 to 2.25 (Lines 6 and 7). This refers to a multiplier for the amount of torque that the motor should supply and that the drive should be expected to output enough energy for because there could be some unanticipated loads or operating conditions that may affect the operation of the system (Lines 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gass the teachings of safety factor and have the motor overdimensioned on a safety factor of around 1.5 to 2.25 for a higher power than necessary for intended applications and tool diameter working ranges to account for unanticipated loads or operating conditions that may affect the operation of the system.
Claims 15, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 2003/0196824) in view of Drilling Speeds and Feeds ( Drilling Speeds and Feeds, EML2322L – MAE Design and Manufacturing Laboratory, 23/10/2018) and further in view of Masaki (US 6394717).
Regarding Claims 15, 21 and 26:
As discussed for Claims 10 and 18 above, the modified invention of Gass discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Gass does not specifically disclose that the motor has a rotational speed range and a torque range and is operated in a lower half of the rotational speed range and an upper half of the torque range.
Masaki teaches a similar power tool, also directly driven by a brushless motor (Figure 2, Direct motor 2), the motor having a rotational speed range and a torque range as can be seen on Figure 6 in particular.
PNG
media_image3.png
749
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Figure shows the sped and torque range for a typical motor, and as can be seen in the figure, for a given amount of current applied to the motor, the motor has a value of speed and a torque. For the motor, as the torque increases, the speed of the motor decreases. For high speed the motor will have lower torque and for low speeds the motor will have higher torque; note that in particular, when changing a tool from a smaller diameter to one of larger diameter, to maintain the same circumferential speed, the rotational speed of the motor needs to be reduced, and in the case discussed for Claims 10, that to replace a drill bit for one of double the diameter reducing the speed 50%, in the Figure a speed reduction from 4000 to 2000 rpm would significantly increase the torque of the motor, from about 1.50 N-m to about 5 N-m.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gass the teachings of Masaki and operate the motor on the lower half of the rotational speed range and an upper half of the torque range if a higher torque is required and lower speeds are adequate, note that in particular, when changing a tool from a smaller diameter to one of larger diameter, to maintain the same circumferential speed, the rotational speed of the motor needs to be reduced.
Claims 23 to 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 2003/0196824) in view of Drilling Speeds and Feeds ( Drilling Speeds and Feeds, EML2322L – MAE Design and Manufacturing Laboratory, 23/10/2018) and further in view of Dietl (US 2012/0223663).
Regarding Claims 23 to 25:
As discussed for Claims 10 and 18 above, the modified invention of Gass discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Gass does not disclose if the motor employs field weakening to increase the rotational speed of the motor, wherein the motor has an upper half of a speed range and a lower half of a speed range and the field weakening operates solely in the upper half of the speed range or wherein a relationship of a torque to the rotational speed of the motor in the upper half of the speed range is different than in the lower half of the speed range owing to the field weakening.
Dietl discloses to change the rotation-speed/torque characteristic of a brushless motor (Abstract, paragraph 0074, motor 10) using field weakening to provide a “boost function” for the rotation speed of the motor if required, (Paragraphs 0110, 0114, Figure 12, if a sensor detects a brief reduction in the rotation speed, which exceeds a specific threshold value per unit time, then the motor is briefly operated at an increased rotation speed); Figure 12 shows a “normal characteristic” torque vs speed curve 42, that will be considered a lower half of a speed range and a “parallel-shifted characteristic” torque vs speed curve 44, that will be considered an upper half of a speed range, when Field weakening is applied, the motor is briefly operated at an increased rotation speed, as is indicated by the characteristic 48 to curve 44 that is considered the upper half of a speed range, during the period indicated on 48, the relationship of a torque to the rotational speed of the motor is different as the relationship before the boost caused by the field weakening was applied.
PNG
media_image4.png
396
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gass the teachings of Dietl and use field weakening to increase the rotational speed of the motor as disclosed to provide a “boost function” for the rotation speed of the motor if a brief reduction in the rotation speed, which exceeds a specific threshold value is detected, briefly operating the motor on upper half of a speed range, as the use of field weakening to increase the rotational speed of an electric motor is a common practice in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 112(b) have been considered but are not convincing. The fact that the Examiner read the specification and was able to discern what the Applicant wanted to disclose on the claims does not really mean that the claims are in any way clear, still the Applicant discloses a single tool while in reality to meet the claim at least two tools are required. A new rejection was made including other issue regarding the “speed range” not mentioned before.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurshak (US 2003/0007835) in view of Beck (US 2015/0303848) have been considered and were considered convincing. The Examiner made a new rejection as being unpatentable over Gass (US 2003/0196824) in view of Drilling Speeds and Feeds.
The Examiner is open for an interview at the Applicants convenience to discuss the matters of this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, a proper rejection of the independent claim can be made with Beck (US 2015/0303848), Masaki (US 6394717) or Yamamoto (US 2015/0122513); Jurshak (US 2003/0007835) can be used for teachings of circumferential speeds of bits operating on concrete; Saar (US 4307325) and Shinohara (US 4831364) teach controlling the speed of a drill motor in reference to the material being drilled and the diameter of the bit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731