FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 25-38 are presented for examination. Claim 38 is newly added.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
3. The text of those applicable section of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
4. The rejections are respectfully maintained that is applicable to the amended claims for applicant's convenience.
5. Claims 25-38 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitations “the spread” in line 6; “the ratio” in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-38 rejected because they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 25.
6. Claim 36 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.
Claim 36, this claim contains both apparatus (system) and method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 112 (b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
7. Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 25 is method for operating power tool. Claim 36 depending on claim 25 for again stating “a power tool for carrying the method of claim 25” does not further limit subject matter for claim it depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
8. Claims 25-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dietl et al. (Dietl), US publication no. 2012/0223663.
As per claim 25, Dietl teaches a method for operating a power tool [figure 14], the method comprising:
selecting an application-optimized device characteristic by a user of the power tool [figures 2, 3, 4, 8; para 16], the application-optimized device characteristic lying in a qualified operating range of the power tool, the device characteristic having a spread value S [a rotation-speed/torque profile] lying in a range from 0.2 to 0.6 [rotation-speed/
torque characteristic can be achieved which is designed] [para 16-18, 32, 33, 84, 85; claim 18]; and operating the power tool so that the spread lies within the spread value, the spread being the ratio of transition speed to idle speed [para 85, 87].
Dietl teaches:
[0016] The permanently effective control circuit allows the motor to be optimally matched for different operating states. Depending on the configuration of the motor and depending on the configuration of the permanently effective control circuit, this makes it possible to produce rotation-speed/ torque characteristics which are matched to specific nominal characteristics during operation. By way of example, a suitable design makes it possible to achieve a steeper rotation-speed/ torque profile than in the case of a conventional direct current motor which is otherwise of the same type.
[0017] Alternatively or additionally, a rotation-speed/torque characteristic can be achieved which is designed for greater use in a high rotation-speed range and which, furthermore, is also suitable for operation with a higher torque in a lower rotation-speed range.
[0018] In this case, depending on the design of the motor and of the permanently effective control circuit, the rotation-speed/torque characteristic can be matched to numerous nominal profiles, in which case it is also possible to implement the typical behaviour of a motor which is provided with a two-gear or multi-gear gearbox.
[0085] In particular, s can be incorporated in an existing rotation-speed/torque characteristic of a motor, for example by setting s=1 in the no-load rotation-speed range from n0 to 0.8·n0. For example, s= 0.3 could be fixed for s in the medium rotation-speed range from 0.8•n0 to 0.4·n0, and, for example, could be set to s= 0.1 in the low rotation-speed range, in the range from 0.4•n0 to 0.
[0087] By way of example, FIG. 4 illustrates one such situation. While the characteristic 20 represents the normal characteristic of an EC motor, the characteristic 22 once again shows the characteristic which has been shifted parallel by an increase in the phase voltage. The characteristic 28 in contrast shows a rotation-speed/torque characteristic which is achieved with a mechanical step-up ratio. A variable-speed
mechanical two-gear gearbox in combination with the EC motor will therefore lead, for example, to a characteristic whose upper section would run along the curve 28 and then bends away from the intersection point with the curve 20, and continues to run along the curve 20. A characteristic such as this can be simulated with the motor according to the invention, for example as indicated by the characteristic 30 in FIG. 4. In order to avoid a sudden change, the factors is in this case not changed suddenly, since this can lead to control oscillations when load changes occur. By way of example, s is therefore chosen as a linear function of the rotation speed in the transitional range. Instead of the rotation speed as the independent parameter, it is also possible to choose the torque, the current level, the temperature or a combination
thereof.
18. A direct-current motor having a specific rotation-speed/torque characteristic during rated operation, said motor comprising a matching arrangement for varying at least one
parameter selected from the group consisting of rotation speed and torque, and having a permanently effective control circuit for controlling said motor, said control circuit being programmed such that the rotation-speed/torque characteristic is permanently varied with respect to said specific rotation-speed/torque characteristic during rated operation or with respect to operation with said matching arrangement, wherein said motor is configured such that it operates in a thermally impermissible range during continuous operation, at least in sub-areas of its rotation-speed/torque characteristic,
and wherein said control circuit is programmed such that the motor is operated in a thermally permissible range during continuous operation, wherein a sensor is provided for detecting a time-dependent rise in a load on said motor, said sensor being coupled to said control circuit for initiating an increase in output power of the motor, over a limited time, if a predetermined threshold value is exceeded.
As per claim 26, Dietl teaches a) configuring the application-optimized device characteristic [para 15-18, 116].
As per claim 27, Dietl teaches the device characteristic is selected on the power tool itself [para 15-17, 38] or using an input device [para 116].
As per claim 28, Dietl teaches the device characteristic is determined by characteristic points [figures 2, 3, 4, 8; para 15-16, 87].
As per claim 29, Dietl teaches the device characteristic comprises i characteristic points and (i-1) subportions [figures 2, 3, 4, 8; para 15-16, 87].
As per claim 30, Dietl teaches each of the characteristic points is formed by a torque value M and a speed value n [figures 2, 3, 4, 8; para 15-16, 87].
As per claim 31, Dietl teaches the characteristic points are determined by inputting the characteristic points into the power tool itself [para 15-18, 38] or on an input device [para 116].
As per claim 32, Dietl teaches the device characteristic is assigned to an application field of the power tool [figure 14; para 15, 16, 116].
As per claim 33, Dietl teaches the spread value S lies in a range from 0.3 to 0.5 [para 16, 17, 85].
As per claim 34, Dietl teaches the spread value S lies in a range from 0.33 to 0.4. [para 16, 17, 85].
As per claim 35, Dietl teaches the spread value S lies at 0.36 [para 16, 17, 85].
As to claims 36 and 37, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 25 and 28. Accordingly, claims 36 and 37 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 25 and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietl et al. (Dietl), US publication no. 2012/0223663 in view of Matsuki et al. (Matsuki), US publication no. 2006/0130627 A1.
As per claim 38, Dietl discloses a machine tool for cutting operation [para 58].
Dietl fails to disclose the operating includes machining an epoxy resin surface.
Matsuki discloses the operating includes machining an epoxy resin surface [figure 2; para 49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Dietl and Matsuki because they both disclose a Machine tool, the specify teachings of Matsuki stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Dietl system to obtain predictable results by machining a resin surface object.
11. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
13. In the remarks, applicants argued in substance that Dietl fails to disclose operating the power tool so that the spread lies within the spread value, the spread being the ratio of transition speed to idle speed.
14. In response to applicant’s argument, Dietl discloses the claimed limitation of operating the power tool so that the spread lies within the spread value [a rotation-speed/torque profile], the spread being the ratio of transition speed to idle speed [para 84-85, 87].
Also see detailed action above.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights