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 / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 11/20/2025. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined. The amendment to the claims has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-11, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al (UK Patent Application No. GB2598736) in view of Vanko et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0234484), hereinafter referred to as Howard and Vanko, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Howard discloses a grinding tool [Howard, fig 1], comprising:
a housing accommodating a motor [Howard, page 6, claim 1, line 4];
a spindle protruding from the housing and being rotatable upon being driven by the motor [Howard, figs 5A and 5B, a spindle], the spindle having an end to receive a tip tool [Howard, see annotated fig 2B, item A];
a switch to be turned on or off in response to an external operation [Howard, fig 2D, 4 the pull trigger];
an electrical circuit configured to control driving of the motor in response to the switch being turned on or off [Howard, page 2, lines 18-20 and figs 9A-9C];
a handle mount on the housing to receive an auxiliary handle in a detachable manner [Howard, fig 7 showing the mounting of the auxiliary handle to the housing];
a handle detector configured to electrically detect an attachment state of the auxiliary handle to the handle mount [Howard, fig 7, showing the installation switch]; and
a handle gripping detector configured to electrically detect a gripping state of the auxiliary handle attached to the handle mount [Howard, fig 8B, showing that there is a switch that engages with the auxiliary handle],
wherein the circuit drives the motor in response to the switch being turned on after the handle detector detects attachment of the auxiliary handle and the handle gripping detector detects gripping of the auxiliary handle [Howard, abstract, the motor turn on only when both switches are activated], in response to the switch being turned on with the attachment and the gripping of the auxiliary handle being detected, controls the motor to rotate at a predetermined first rotational speed [Howard, abstract, the motor rotates the tool at a rotational speed].
However, Howard does not explicitly disclose a controller (emphasis added) configured to control the driving of the motor in response to the switch being turned on or off and that wherein the controller drives the motor in response to the switch being turned on after the handle detector detects attachment of the auxiliary handle and the handle gripping detector detects gripping of the auxiliary handle, [the controller] in response to the switch being turned on with the attachment and the gripping of the auxiliary handle being detected, controls the motor to rotate at a predetermined first rotational speed, and [the controller] in response to a state of a load on the tip tool being unchanged for a predetermined period of time, controls the motor to rotate at a second rotational speed lower than the first rotational speed.
Vanko teaches a grinding tool [Vanko, fig 1, 10], comprising:
a housing accommodating a motor [Vanko, fig 3, 16 accommodates 28];
a spindle protruding from the housing and being rotatable upon being driven by the motor [Vanko, fig 3, 24], the spindle having an end to receive a tip tool [Vanko, page 2, pp 0037, 24 can receive a tool];
a switch to be turned on or off in response to an external operation [Vanko, fig 1, 32];
a controller configured to control driving of the motor in response to the switch being turned on or off [Vanko, page 2, pp 0038, 11 and page 3, pp 0048];
wherein the controller drives the motor in response to the switch being turned on [Vanko, page 4, pp’s 0051 and 0053], in response to the switch being turned on, controls the motor to rotate at a predetermined first rotational speed [Vanko, fig 16, which is a braking profile, beginning at time between 0.5s and 0.6s at the transition to the soft braking region, this is a first time at a first rotational speed and the start of a load condition, see page 6, pp 0073], and in response to a state of a load on the tip tool being unchanged for a predetermined period of time, controls the motor to rotate at a second rotational speed lower than the first rotational speed [Vanko, fig 16, which is a braking profile, at 0.6s or at any time between the start of the soft brake region to the end of the soft brake region, the load condition is the same, hence requiring the soft brake and being within the soft brake condition, and the RPM of the tool drops from 17,000 to 4,000, see page 6, pp 0073 for the length of the soft brake condition].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the controller of Vanko within the electrical circuit of the grinding tool of Howard and to include within the controller the braking profiles of Vanko because the braking profile(s) of Vanko are to solve the problem of kickback of the tool and user safety in that when a fault or a kickback occurs during use, a braking profile can be applied to reduce kickback of the tool and to prevent further accidents, such as the grinding wheel coming off the spindle during the braking due to the load on the tool [Vanko, page 1, pp’s 0003-0004 and 0025 and page 2, pp 0029]. Where having a braking profile increases user’s safety and useability of the tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the second rotational speed is other than 0 revolutions per minute [Vanko, page 6, pp 0073 down to 4,000 RPM].
Regarding claims 3 (Currently Amended) and 9 (Currently Amended), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claims 1-2, respectively, wherein the handle detector and the handle gripping detector include a common sensor [Howard, figs 9A-9C, both are pressure switches to detect when gripping happens and both are common and well known in the art].
Regarding claims 4 (Original) and 10 (Original) – 11 (Orignal), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claims 1-3, respectively, wherein the state of the load on the tip tool includes a load current from the motor [Vanko, page 6, pp 0074 and fig 17 shows the process of fig 16].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the motor at a rotational speed of 0 revolutions per minute in response to the state of the load on the tip tool being unchanged for the predetermined period of time [Vanko, fig 16, the load condition is the same for the soft braking section as for the hard braking section and the hard braking section stops the rotational speed], resets control of the motor at the rotational speed of 0 revolutions per minute in response to the switch being turned off [Vanko, fig 16, the tool can be shut down and turned off such that there is no electricity to the motor], and controls the motor to rotate at the first rotational speed in response to the switch being turned on with the attachment and the gripping of the auxiliary handle being detected [Vanko, fig 16, when the grinder is turned on again, the device is ramped up to the soft braking profile again and can be repeated as needed for that braking profile].
Regarding claims 7 (Original), 15 (Original), 16 (Original), 17 (Original) and 19 (Original), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claims 1-4 and 6, respectively, wherein the grinding tool includes a plurality of the handle mounts [Howard, page 4, lines 21-30].
Regarding claims 8 (Original) and 20 (Original), Howard as modified further discloses the grinding tool according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein the housing includes a battery mount [Howard, see annotated fig 2, battery mounted].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued on page 8 that the Vanko does not teach the claimed feature of controlling the motor at a second rotational speed in response to an unchanged load condition because Vanko’s system is applying braking force to decelerate the motor through various speeds rather than affirmatively controlling the motor to operate at a second rotational speed and because Vanko’s braking is triggered by fault/kickback even not by monitoring for unchanged load conditions over a predetermined period. Respectfully the Office disagrees because claim 1 does not recite the condition stated by the Applicant of “monitoring for unchanged load conditions over a predetermined period of time”. Claim 1 recites “in response to a state of load on the tip tool being unchanged for a predetermined period of time, controls the motor to rotate at a second rotational speed lower than the first rotational speed”. The applicant has not specified the predetermined time, nor that the controller monitors for the state of the load. In the instant case, the state of the load is the kickback condition, and the response is by the controller is to cycle through at least one speed lower, for at least a specified predetermined time. While this is not the same as monitoring as the applicant has argued, it was not claimed that the controller monitors for this unchanged load. Therefore the prior art still reads on the claimed limitation and the rejection is maintained. Regarding the interview, because the Office did not see the exact language proposed by the Applicant, further search and consideration was necessitated of the claim language. Should the Applicant thus expressly claim that the controller monitors for an unchanged load condition, then the Office may look favorably on such an amendment.
The Office notes that should the applicant amend claim 1 to “in response to the switch being turned on with the attachment and the gripping of the auxiliary handle being detected, controls the motor to rotate at a predetermined first rotational speed, [[and]] monitors a load current to the motor and the tip tool, and in response to the monitoring of the[[a]] state of a load on the tip tool being unchanged for a predetermined period of time, controls the motor to rotate at a second rotational speed lower than the first rotational speed” from applicants disclosure in pp [0045], that the Office may look favorably. The Office also asks counsel to please call examiner Neibaur for an interview if there are any questions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowed
Claims 5, 12-14, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 12-14, these claims are objected to for the same reasons indicated in the Office action dated 09/05/2025.
Claim 18 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claim 21 (New), claim 21 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claim 5 and is allowed for the same reasons indicated in the Office action dated 09/05/2025.
Regarding claim 22 (New), respectfully the Office agrees with the conclusion of the Applicant in the remarks filed 11/20/2025 regarding claim 22 and the what Vanko does not teach.
Therefore the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “while power continues to be supplied to the controller, controls the motor at a rotational speed of 0 revolutions per minute in response to a state of a load on the tip tool being unchanged for a predetermined period of time while the switch remains turned on” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Conclusion
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 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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights