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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 January 2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10, 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colangelo, III et al. (US Patent 6,889,778 B2) hereinafter referred to as Colangelo in view of Sogabe et al. (WO 8908941 A1) hereinafter referred to as Sogabe in view of Evans et al. (US Patent 7,002,276 B2) hereinafter referred to as Evans and/or Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0234557 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 10, Colangelo discloses an impact tool (10) comprising:
an impact mechanism (fig. 2) comprising a hammer (48 and/or 48’) and an anvil (102 and/or 102’), the hammer configured to rotate about a first axis (30; col. 3 lines 24-27; col. 5 lines 1-7) and to periodically impact the anvil to drive rotation of the anvil about the first axis (col. 5 lines 1-7); and
an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) comprising:
a rotor (24) configured to be directly coupled to the impact mechanism (via 45 and 46; col. 3 lines 41-46; col. 5 lines 1-7), the rotor having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (46 – splines), and
the electric motor configured to drive rotation of the hammer about the first axis (col. 3 lines 21-27; col. 5 lines 1-7; col. 6 lines 6-16);
wherein the motor rotates the hammer in a first direction (either 114 or 116; col. 5 lines 1-7, 31-37; col. 6 lines 6-16; figs. 6-7), and the hammer causes the rotor to periodically stop rotating in the first direction when the hammer periodically impacts the anvil (col. 5 lines 1-7; col. 6 lines 6-16; The connection of #45 and 46 is a direct, splined connection which will naturally result in the “stop rotating” behavior during the noted intermittent impacts as splined connections do not allow for relative movement. It is noted that the Applicant relies on a splined connection in the instant invention to achieve the cited “stopped” behavior as denoted in paragraphs 0012 and 0034 of the instant Specification. Given that Colangelo uses the same mechanical connection as the instant invention, Colangelo is deemed to achieve, and therefore disclose, the same claimed “periodically stop rotating behavior”).
Colangelo discloses an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) with a rotor having a non-cylindrical outer surface (24 with splines 46), but fails to disclose an electric motor comprising rotor laminations, each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture defined therein, the central aperture having a non-cylindrical inner perimeter corresponding to and configured to engage the non-cylindrical outer surface of the rotor to form a non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations.
However, Sogabe teaches an electric motor (figs. 1-2) comprising a rotor (12, 20) having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (20 – spline portion), rotor laminations (13, 14; Abstract – “Each end plate member (13) is made by laminating a required number of annular sheet metal members (14) obtained by punching a suitable sheet metal”; fig. 3), each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture defined therein (#22; fig. 3), the central aperture having a non-cylindrical inner perimeter (fig. 3) corresponding to and configured to engage (Abstract) the non-cylindrical outer surface (20 – spline portion) of the rotor (12, 20) to form a non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations (Description – “As shown in FIG. 3, a plurality of annular sheet metal members 14 provided with a spline-shaped hole 22 that can be closely engaged with the spline portion 20 of the output shaft are prepared. The plate member 13 is formed by stacking four sheet metal members 14 each, thereby enabling desired torque transmission”).
Given the teachings of Sogabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor and non-cylindrical outer rotor surface of the rotor of Colangelo to include the laminations with a non-cylindrical inner perimeter corresponding to and configured to engage the non-cylindrical outer surface of the rotor of Sogabe. Having laminations in the rotor can help to reduce eddy currents and can also help to reduce noise and vibration and provide more structural integrity. Colangelo already teaches having splines on the rotor, and Sogabe further teaches that having the inner perimeter of the laminations correspond to the splines of the rotor is beneficial to fix the rotation of the output shaft to the rest of the rotor and allow for the desired result of torque transmission.
Colangelo in view of Sogabe discloses a rotor (Colangelo - 24; Sogabe – 12, 20) having a first end (Colangelo – splined end 46 near impact mechanism), a second end (Sogabe – splined portion 20 near motor), and a non-cylindrical outer surface that is similar at both the first and second end (The respective ends of the rotor of Colangelo and Sogabe are both splined), but does not disclose the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end.
However, Evans and/or Kobayashi teach a rotor (Evans – 22; Kobayashi – 10, 10a,b) having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (Evans – figs. 2 and 3 shows splined mating surfaces for 22 with the non-cylindrical hole 9; Kobayashi – figs. 1, 2 and 13), and the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end (Evans – fig. 3; Kobayashi – fig. 1).
Given the teachings of Evans and/or Kobayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the rotor of Colangelo in view of Sogabe have a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end. Colangelo in view of Sogabe is already concerned with having a similar non-cylindrical outer surface (i.e. spline) at both the first and second end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rotor maintain a constant cross section from the first to second end as that would make machining rotors easier by having the same profile along the length thus allowing long sections of rotor to be machined at once and then cut to length later. It would also simply design by allowing for the rotor to be placed facing either direction during manufacture.
Regarding claim 18, Colangelo discloses an impact tool (10) comprising:
an impact mechanism (fig. 2) comprising a hammer (48 and/or 48’) and an anvil (102 and/or 102’), the hammer configured to rotate about a first axis (30; col. 3 lines 24-27; col. 5 lines 1-7) and to periodically impact the anvil to drive rotation of the anvil about the first axis (col. 5 lines 1-7); and
an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) comprising:
a rotor (24) configured to be directly coupled to the impact mechanism (via 45 and 46; col. 3 lines 41-46; col. 5 lines 1-7), the rotor having a first end, a second end, and defining an outer surface having a plurality of splines (46 – splines),
the electric motor configured to drive rotation of the hammer about the first axis (col. 3 lines 21-27; col. 5 lines 1-7; col. 6 lines 6-16);
wherein the motor rotates the hammer in a first direction (either 114 or 116; col. 5 lines 1-7, 31-37; col. 6 lines 6-16; figs. 6-7), and the hammer causes the rotor to periodically stop rotating in the first direction when the hammer periodically impacts the anvil (col. 5 lines 1-7; col. 6 lines 6-16; The connection of #45 and 46 is a direct, splined connection which will naturally result in the “stop rotating” behavior during the noted intermittent impacts as splined connections do not allow for relative movement. It is noted that the Applicant relies on a splined connection in the instant invention to achieve the cited “stopped” behavior as denoted in paragraphs 0012 and 0034 of the instant Specification. Given that Colangelo uses the same mechanical connection as the instant invention, Colangelo is deemed to achieve, and therefore disclose, the same claimed “periodically stop rotating behavior”).
Colangelo discloses an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) with a rotor defining an outer surface having a plurality of splines (24 with splines 46), but fails to disclose an electric motor comprising rotor laminations, each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture having an inner perimeter, the inner perimeter having a plurality of splines corresponding to and configured to engage the plurality of splines of the outer surface of the rotor to form a splined non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations.
However, Sogabe teaches an electric motor (figs. 1-2) comprising a rotor (12, 20) having a first end, a second end, and a defining an outer surface having a plurality of splines (20 – spline portion), rotor laminations (13, 14; Abstract – “Each end plate member (13) is made by laminating a required number of annular sheet metal members (14) obtained by punching a suitable sheet metal”; fig. 3), each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture (#22; fig. 3) having an inner perimeter, the inner perimeter having a plurality of splines (#22; fig. 3) corresponding to and configured to engage (Abstract) the plurality of splines (20; fig. 2) of the outer surface of the rotor (12, 20) to form a splined non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations (Description – “As shown in FIG. 3, a plurality of annular sheet metal members 14 provided with a spline-shaped hole 22 that can be closely engaged with the spline portion 20 of the output shaft are prepared. The plate member 13 is formed by stacking four sheet metal members 14 each, thereby enabling desired torque transmission”).
Given the teachings of Sogabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor and non-cylindrical outer rotor surface of the rotor of Colangelo to include the laminations with a non-cylindrical inner perimeter corresponding to and configured to engage the non-cylindrical outer surface of the rotor of Sogabe. Having laminations in the rotor can help to reduce eddy currents and can also help to reduce noise and vibration and provide more structural integrity. Colangelo already teaches having splines on the rotor, and Sogabe further teaches that having the inner perimeter of the laminations correspond to the splines of the rotor is beneficial to fix the rotation of the output shaft to the rest of the rotor and allow for the desired result of torque transmission.
Colangelo in view of Sogabe discloses a rotor (Colangelo - 24; Sogabe – 12, 20) having a first end (Colangelo – splined end 46 near impact mechanism), a second end (Sogabe – splined portion 20 near motor), and defining an outer surface having a plurality of splines that is similar at both the first and second end (The respective ends of the rotor of Colangelo and Sogabe are both splined), but does not disclose the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end.
However, Evans and/or Kobayashi teach a rotor (Evans – 22; Kobayashi – 10, 10a,b) having a first end, a second end, and defining an outer surface having a plurality of splines (Evans – figs. 2 and 3 shows splined mating surfaces for 22 with the non-cylindrical hole 9; Kobayashi – figs. 1, 2 and 13), and the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end (Evans – fig. 3; Kobayashi – fig. 1).
Given the teachings of Evans and/or Kobayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the rotor of Colangelo in view of Sogabe have a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end. Colangelo in view of Sogabe is already concerned with having a similar non-cylindrical outer surface (i.e. spline) at both the first and second end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rotor maintain a constant cross section from the first to second end as that would make machining rotors easier by having the same profile along the length thus allowing long sections of rotor to be machined at once and then cut to length later. It would also simply design by allowing for the rotor to be placed facing either direction during manufacture.
Regarding claim 24, Colangelo discloses an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) for a power tool (10), the electric motor comprising:
a rotor (24) configured to be directly coupled (via 45 and 46; col. 3 lines 41-46; col. 5 lines 1-7) to an impact mechanism (fig. 2) of the power tool, the rotor having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (46 – splines), and
the electric motor configured to drive rotation of the hammer about the first axis (col. 3 lines 21-27; col. 5 lines 1-7; col. 6 lines 6-16).
Colangelo discloses an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18) with a rotor having a non-cylindrical outer surface (24 with splines 46), but fails to disclose an electric motor comprising rotor laminations, each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture defined therein, the central aperture having a non-cylindrical inner perimeter corresponding to and configured to engage the non-cylindrical outer surface of the rotor to form a non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations.
However, Sogabe teaches an electric motor (figs. 1-2) comprising a rotor (12, 20) having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (20 – spline portion), rotor laminations (13, 14; Abstract – “Each end plate member (13) is made by laminating a required number of annular sheet metal members (14) obtained by punching a suitable sheet metal”; fig. 3), each of the rotor laminations comprising a disk having a central aperture defined therein (#22; fig. 3), the central aperture having a non-cylindrical inner perimeter (fig. 3) corresponding to and configured to engage (Abstract) the non-cylindrical outer surface (20 – spline portion) of the rotor (12, 20) to form a non-slip joint configured to prevent slip between the rotor and the rotor laminations (Description – “As shown in FIG. 3, a plurality of annular sheet metal members 14 provided with a spline-shaped hole 22 that can be closely engaged with the spline portion 20 of the output shaft are prepared. The plate member 13 is formed by stacking four sheet metal members 14 each, thereby enabling desired torque transmission”).
Given the teachings of Sogabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor and non-cylindrical outer rotor surface of the rotor of Colangelo to include the laminations with a non-cylindrical inner perimeter corresponding to and configured to engage the non-cylindrical outer surface of the rotor of Sogabe. Having laminations in the rotor can help to reduce eddy currents and can also help to reduce noise and vibration and provide more structural integrity. Colangelo already teaches having splines on the rotor, and Sogabe further teaches that having the inner perimeter of the laminations correspond to the splines of the rotor is beneficial to fix the rotation of the output shaft to the rest of the rotor and allow for the desired result of torque transmission.
Colangelo in view of Sogabe discloses a rotor (Colangelo - 24; Sogabe – 12, 20) having a first end (Colangelo – splined end 46 near impact mechanism), a second end (Sogabe – splined portion 20 near motor), and a non-cylindrical outer surface that is similar at both the first and second end (The respective ends of the rotor of Colangelo and Sogabe are both splined), but does not disclose the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end.
However, Evans and/or Kobayashi teach a rotor (Evans – 22; Kobayashi – 10, 10a,b) having a first end, a second end, and a non-cylindrical outer surface (Evans – figs. 2 and 3 shows mating surfaces for 22 with the non-cylindrical hole 9; Kobayashi – figs. 1, 2 and 13), and the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end (Evans – fig. 3; Kobayashi – fig. 1).
Given the teachings of Evans and/or Kobayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the rotor of Colangelo in view of Sogabe have a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end. Colangelo in view of Sogabe is already concerned with having a similar non-cylindrical outer surface (i.e. spline) at both the first and second end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rotor maintain a constant cross section from the first to second end as that would make machining rotors easier by having the same profile along the length thus allowing long sections of rotor to be machined at once and then cut to length later. It would also simply design by allowing for the rotor to be placed facing either direction during manufacture.
Claim(s) 11-12, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colangelo (US Patent 6,889,778 B2) in view of Sogabe (WO 8908941 A1) in view of Evans (US Patent 7,002,276 B2) and/or Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0234557 A1) in further view of Morrison (US Patent 6,727,618 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Colangelo teaches an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18), but fails to disclose an electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor or a synchronous reluctance motor.
However, Morrison teaches wherein the electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor (Morrison - #10; Abstract; col. 2 lines 56-58) or a synchronous reluctance motor.
Given the teachings of Morrison (col. 1 lines 38-43; col. 2 lines 20-27), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor of Colangelo to be one of a switch reluctance motor as taught by Morrison. Doing so would provide advantages such as reliability, durability, low cost and possible operation in adverse environments including high temperatures, temperature variations or high rotational speeds. Doing so also provides for higher load carrying capacity and/or greater vibration suppression capacity.
Regarding claim 12, Colangelo as modified by Sogabe above discloses wherein the non-slip joint (Colangelo - 46 – splines; Sogabe – 20, 22) is one of a D-shaped joint, a star joint, a hex joint, or a splined joint (Colangelo - 46; Sogabe – 20, 22, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 23, Colangelo teaches an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18), but fails to disclose an electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor or a synchronous reluctance motor.
However, Morrison teaches wherein the electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor (Morrison - #10; Abstract; col. 2 lines 56-58) or a synchronous reluctance motor.
Given the teachings of Morrison (col. 1 lines 38-43; col. 2 lines 20-27), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor of Colangelo to be one of a switch reluctance motor as taught by Morrison. Doing so would provide advantages such as reliability, durability, low cost and possible operation in adverse environments including high temperatures, temperature variations or high rotational speeds. Doing so also provides for higher load carrying capacity and/or greater vibration suppression capacity.
Regarding claim 25, Colangelo teaches an electric motor (22; col. 3 lines 18-20; col. 9 lines 17-18), but fails to disclose an electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor or a synchronous reluctance motor.
However, Morrison teaches wherein the electric motor is one of a switch reluctance motor (Morrison - #10; Abstract; col. 2 lines 56-58) or a synchronous reluctance motor.
Given the teachings of Morrison (col. 1 lines 38-43; col. 2 lines 20-27), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the electric motor of Colangelo to be one of a switch reluctance motor as taught by Morrison. Doing so would provide advantages such as reliability, durability, low cost and possible operation in adverse environments including high temperatures, temperature variations or high rotational speeds. Doing so also provides for higher load carrying capacity and/or greater vibration suppression capacity.
Regarding claim 26, Colangelo as modified by Sogabe above discloses wherein the non-slip joint (Colangelo - 46 – splines; Sogabe – 20, 22) is one of a D-shaped joint, a star joint, a hex joint, or a splined joint (Colangelo - 46; Sogabe – 20, 22, figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-17, 19, 21-22, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colangelo (US Patent 6,889,778 B2) in view of Sogabe (WO 8908941 A1) in view of Evans (US Patent 7,002,276 B2) and/or Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0234557 A1) in further view of Ely (US 2016/0354905 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Colangelo fails to disclose a control circuit that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold.
However, Ely teaches a control circuit (70) that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold (paragraphs 0032, 0039).
Given the teachings of Ely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the control circuit of Ely with the electric motor of Colangelo. Doing so would help to ensure that the tool did not draw too much current or otherwise operate outside of established guidelines and thus would help to prevent burnouts or other types of damage.
Regarding claim 14, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the control circuit (Ely - 70) limits the current supplied to the electric motor in response to the hammer impacting the anvil (Ely – paragraphs 0037, 0039, 0040; fig. 7 after #110; fig. 8 after #130).
Regarding claim 16, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the control circuit (Ely - 70) comprises an electronic controller to determine a desired parameter of the impact mechanism and to adjust the threshold to a level associated with achieving the desired parameter of the impact mechanism (Ely - paragraphs 0037, 0040).
Regarding claim 17, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the desired parameter (Ely - paragraph 0040) is at least one of a rotational speed achieved by the hammer, a torque delivered by the hammer to the anvil upon impact, a rebound angle of the hammer after impacting the anvil, or a frequency at which the hammer impacts the anvil.
Regarding claim 19, Colangelo fails to disclose a control circuit that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold, wherein the control circuit limits the current supplied to the electric motor in response to the hammer impacting the anvil.
However, Ely teaches a control circuit (70) that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold (paragraphs 0032, 0039), wherein the control circuit limits the current supplied to the electric motor in response to the hammer impacting the anvil (paragraphs 0037, 0039, 0040; fig. 7 after #110; fig. 8 after #130).
Given the teachings of Ely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the control circuit of Ely with the electric motor of Colangelo. Doing so would help to ensure that the tool did not draw too much current or otherwise operate outside of established guidelines and thus would help to prevent burnouts or other types of damage.
Regarding claim 21, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the control circuit (Ely - 70) comprises an electronic controller to determine a desired parameter of the impact mechanism and to adjust the threshold to a level associated with achieving the desired parameter of the impact mechanism (Ely - paragraphs 0037, 0040).
Regarding claim 22, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the desired parameter (Ely - paragraph 0040) is at least one of a rotational speed achieved by the hammer, a torque delivered by the hammer to the anvil upon impact, a rebound angle of the hammer after impacting the anvil, or a frequency at which the hammer impacts the anvil.
Regarding claim 27, Colangelo fails to disclose a control circuit that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold.
However, Ely teaches a control circuit (70) that supplies a current to the electric motor and limits the current supplied to the motor by disabling the supply of current when the current exceeds a threshold (paragraphs 0032, 0039, 0040).
Given the teachings of Ely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the control circuit of Ely with the electric motor of Colangelo. Doing so would help to ensure that the tool did not draw too much current or otherwise operate outside of established guidelines and thus would help to prevent burnouts or other types of damage.
Regarding claim 29, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the control circuit (Ely - 70) comprises an electronic controller to determine a desired parameter of the impact mechanism and to adjust the threshold to a level associated with achieving the desired parameter of the impact mechanism (Ely - paragraphs 0037, 0040).
Claim(s) 15, 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colangelo (US Patent 6,889,778 B2) in view of Sogabe (WO 8908941 A1) in view of Evans (US Patent 7,002,276 B2) and/or Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0234557 A1) in further view of Ely (US 2016/0354905 A1) in view of Suzuki (US Patent 8,813,866 B2).
Regarding claims 15, 20 and 28, Colangelo as modified by Ely above discloses wherein the control circuit includes a current measurement circuit (Ely - paragraph 0032 – “one or more sensors to measure an amount of electrical current going through the motor windings”), that disables the supply of current to the electric motor for each successive cycle the current exceeds a specified threshold for the electric motor (Ely - paragraph 0032 - “shut the motor off”; paragraph 0039).
Colangelo as modified by Ely fails to disclose wherein the control circuit includes a pulse-width modulation circuit.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the control circuit includes a pulse-width modulation circuit (190; col. 9 lines 33-50).
Given the teachings of Suzuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the control circuit of Colangelo as modified by Ely to have the pulse-width modulation circuit of Suzuki. Ely’s control circuit is concerned with the problem of modulating the electrical pulses for maintaining control of the tool (Ely – paragraph 0005). Suzuki teaches the known means of controlling such pulses with a pulse-width modulation circuit. Doing so would allow the control circuit to properly meter out the current to the tool based on operational parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments rely on amendments to the claims which are deemed to be addressed by the new prior art rejection provided above. In short, the Applicant is claiming the rotor has a first end, a second end and a constant non-cylindrical outer surface between those two ends. The Office notes that the original specification does not expressly denote the outer surface of the instant invention to be “constant” from end to end. Insofar as this limitation might be considered to be supported by the Applicant’s figures, the Office has provided new teaching references in the form of Evans and Kobayashi which are each deemed to teach a constant non-cylindrical outer surface between the two ends of the rotor to at least the same degree as the Applicant’s original disclosure supports.
Colangelo in view of Sogabe already discloses a rotor (Colangelo - 24; Sogabe – 12, 20) having a first end (Colangelo – splined end 46 near impact mechanism), a second end (Sogabe – splined portion 20 near motor), and a non-cylindrical outer surface that is similar at both the first and second end (The respective ends of the rotor of Colangelo and Sogabe are both splined), but does not disclose the rotor having a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end.
As detailed above, the teachings of Evans and/or Kobayashi demonstrate it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the rotor of Colangelo in view of Sogabe have a cross-section that is constant from the first end to the second end.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731