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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on 01/25/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 and 10/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 7 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “transmitting screw connection information” renders claim 7 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what information is being transmitted and where the information is being transmitted to. Claim 7 is dependent of claim 1 and claim 1 disclose the steps of setting the operating stage and setting the rotational speed constancy. Claim 1 does not disclose a step of gathering information of the screw or the condition of the screw. It is unclear what information is being used about the screw. Claim 1 also does not communicating or transmitting information with another device. It is unclear where the information is being transmitted to. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “determining a screwing operation is complete when the cut-off criterion is reached”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “transmitting a screw connection number when the battery voltage falls below the battery voltage limit value” renders claim 9 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what information is being transmitted and where the information is being transmitted to. It is unclear what a “screw connection number” represents. Could it represent the size of the screw to make the screw connection, or the number of rotations to complete the screw connection. Claim 9 is dependent of claim 8 which is dependent of claim 1. Claim 1 discloses the steps of setting the operating stage and setting the rotational speed constancy. Claim 1 does not communicating or transmitting information with another device. It is unclear where the information is being transmitted to. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted “determining a condition of the battery pack when the battery voltage falls below the battery voltage limit 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Mergener et al. (10,131,043) in view of reference Harada et al. (2013/0264087).
Regarding claim 1, Mergener et al. disclose a method for controlling a hand-held power tool (200), wherein the hand-held power tool (200) includes: a driving motor (214); and a control unit (226), and wherein the method comprising the steps of:
setting an operating stage for controlling the drive motor (214) by way of the control unit (226),
wherein the operating stage includes a direction of rotation of the drive motor (214), a rotational speed of the drive motor (214), and a cut-off criterion;
operating the drive motor (214) depending on the set operating stage; and
braking the drive motor (214) when the cut-off criterion is met.
(Figure 2, 3, 30, 31 and Column 3 lines 40-56, Column 31 lines 35-40, Column 32 lines 15-29, Column 33 lines 8-23, Column 40 lines 2-7)
However, Mergener et al. do not disclose setting a rotational speed constancy.
Harada et al. disclose a method for controlling a hand-held power tool (1), wherein the hand-held power tool (1) includes: a driving motor (30); and a control unit (15), and wherein the method comprising the steps of:
setting a rotational speed constancy of the rotational speed of the drive motor (30);
operating the drive motor (30) depending on the set rotational speed constancy; and
braking the drive motor (3) when a cut-off criterion is met.
(Figure 1, 5 and Page 2 paragraph 51, Page 3 paragraph 53, Page 4 paragraph 67, 68)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mergener et al. by incorporating the setting and use of a rotational speed constancy as taught by Harada et al., since page 1 paragraph 10 states such a modification would allow the power tool to operate in a quiet mode.
Regarding claim 2, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the rotational speed is essentially constant rotational speed when the rotational speed constancy is activated. (Harada et al. – Page 4 paragraph 67)
Regarding claim 3, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the rotational speed is maximum rotational speed when the rotational speed constancy is deactivated. (Mergener et al. – Column 34 lines 50-54)
Regarding claim 4, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose detecting a current rotational speed of the drive motor (Mergener et al. – 214) by way of the control unit (Mergener et al. – 226) and comparing the current rotational speed with the set rotational speed. (Mergener et al. – Column 7 lines 50-55)
Regarding claim 5, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose detecting a current rotational speed is controlled by way of the control unit (Mergener et al. – 226) if the comparison results in a deviation by the current rotational speed form the set rotational speed. (Mergener et al. – Column 7 lines 50-55)
Regarding claim 6, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose receiving an operating stage from an external communication device (800) by way of the control unit (Mergener et al. – 226). (Mergener et al. – Column 4 lines 7-9)
Regarding claim 7, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose determining a screwing operation is complete when the cut-off criterion is reached. (Mergener et al. – Column 36 lines 17-23)
Regarding claim 8, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose determining a battery voltage of a hand-held power tool rechargable battery pack (Mergener et al. – 400) of the hand-held power tool (Mergener et al. – 200) by way of the control unit (Mergener et al. – 226). (Mergener et al. – Figure 5, 7 and Column 12 lines 13-17, 22-28)
Regarding claim 9, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose comparing the battery voltage to a battery voltage limit value, and determining a condition of the battery pack (Mergener et al. – 400) when the battery voltage falls below the battery voltage limit value. (Mergener et al. – Column 11 lines 2-9, Column 12 lines 22-28)
Regarding claim 10, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the operating stage comprises a threading stage, wherein, during the threading stage, at least a fraction of a revolution is performed in a loosening direction of rotation. (Mergener et al. – Column 34 lines 4-11)
Regarding claim 11, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the operating stage comprises a high-speed rotation stage, wherein, during the high-speed rotation stage, a high-speed rotation stage number of revolutions is performed in a tightening direction of rotation at a high-speed rotation stage speed. (Mergener et al. – Column 36 lines 15-26)
Regarding claim 12, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the operating stage comprises a cut-off stage, wherein, during the cut-off stage, a cut-off stage rotational speed is performed in a tightening direction of rotation until a cut-off torque is met as the cut-off criterion. (Mergener et al. – Column 33 lines 14-21, Column 38 lines 19-24)
Regarding claim 13, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the operating stage comprises a loosening stage, wherein, during the loosening stage, a loosening stage number of revolutions is performed in a loosening direction of rotation. (Mergener et al. – Column 34 lines 4-11)
Regarding claim 14, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose a control unit (Mergener et al. – 226) configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Mergener et al. – Figure 3 and Column 8 lines 46-56)
Regarding claim 15, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose a hand-held power tool (Mergener et al. – 200) comprising: a driving motor (Mergener et al. – 214); and a control unit (Mergener et al. – 226), wherein the control unit (Mergener et al. – 226) is designed to perform the method according to claim 1. (Mergener et al. – Figure 2, 3 and Column 3 lines 40-56, Column 8 lines 46-56)
Regarding claim 16, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the hand-held power tool is a cut-off screwdriver. (Mergener et al. – Column 3 lines 44-46, Column 33 lines 8-21)
Regarding claim 17, Mergener et al. modified by Harada et al. disclose the hand-held power tool is a cut-off screwdriver. (Mergener et al. – Column 3 lines 44-46, Column 33 lines 8-21)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 February 6, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731