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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tsuruta et al does not depict a single start-up sequence where the current limit is stepped up over time because the applied reference plots together mutually exclusive operating scenarios (low, medium, and high battery voltages). Applicant further argues that the illustrated three curves represent separate static alternative embodiments rather than a chronological timeline within a single start-up event. In response, the examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite a “single start-up sequence”, nor does it require “uninterrupted chronological progression over a single trigger of the power tool”. Claim 1 merely requires “increasing the current clipping threshold over subsequent intervals of the plurality of intervals”. It is well established under patent law that limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Because claim 1 does not exclude the interpretation of “intervals” as distinct operational phases of changing battery states, the applied reference’s disclosure of adjusting current clipping thresholds across low, medium, and high battery states satisfies the literal language of the claim.
The examiner previously pointed out (Non-Final Office Action dated 5/11/26) that the limitation directed to “intervals” is too broad and lacks clear, objective boundaries. The claim fails to provide any structural or clear metes and bounds to define what constitute an “interval”. Because the term “intervals” remains completely unbounded in the claim, a person of ordinary skill in the art must speculate as to its scope. The fact that applicant needs to add in his arguments that the claims refer to a single start-up sequence to distinguish the prior art from the claimed invention demonstrates that the claim language fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the boundaries of the invention.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, the scope of the claims has no clear boundaries. The claimed limitations are subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. How are the time intervals selected or defined? Are the time intervals equally spaced?.
Claims 2 and 9, How similar are the current curves, do they increase and decrease at the same rate? The term “substantially similar speed ramp-up curve” introduces further indefiniteness, as the claim does not provide a clear guideline to determine how close two curves must be to be considered “substantially similar”.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 16-19 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta et al (US Publication 2015/0084554).
Claim 1, Tsuruta et al teaches a method for operating a power tool having a motor 1, a detachable battery 20, and a controller 13, the method comprises: initializing a current clipping threshold to a baseline value, applying the current clipping threshold to a current drawn from the battery 20 during a plurality of time intervals, and gradually increasing the current clipping threshold over a plurality of intervals to the control a ramp-up speed curve of the motor. Although Tsuruta et al does not specifically describe the current limit being dynamically increased, we can see in figure 3 how the maximum current of each individual current curve is gradually increased based on a series of parameters during a set start-up time period(including discrete intervals between t0 and t10) in order to control a ramp-up motor speed (see for example the description given in paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a gradual increase of current limit during start up as indirectly described by Tsuruta et al, since gradually adjusting the current would reduce inrush current, protect components of the power tool, ad provide controlled acceleration. Tsuruta et al further teaches in figures 2/3 and corresponding descriptions a plurality of duty ratios for a PWM control signal applied to motor 11.
Claims 2, 9, and 16, Tsuruta et al describes in fig. 4 and corresponding description (see paragraph 0073) that the speed exhibits a substantially similar speed-up curve (related to the duty ratio of the PWM control signal applied to the motor). Tsuruta et al further describes in paragraph 0013 that power tool 1 has a main body 10 and a detachable battery pack 20, wherein the battery pack has a plurality of battery cells 21 connected in series. One person skilled in the art would know the capacity of the battery pack can easily be changed by reconfiguring the plurality of battery cells (between series and parallel configurations).
Claims 4, 11, and 17,Tsuruta et al describes in fig. 3, the current clipping threshold being incremented as a function of time.
Claims 5, 12, and 18,Tsuruta et al describes paragraphs 0041-0042, the current limit thresholds are incremented in closed loop and as a function of the rotational speed of the motor determined by the electromotive force of the motor.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 19,Tsuruta et al describes paragraphs 0061-0067, how the current limit is controlled based on a series of parameters such as voltage and current detected by sensors 22 and 24.
Claims 8 and 15, Tsuruta et al teaches a power tool 1, for example a drill driver, comprising a main body 10 and a detachable battery pack 20 comprising a plurality of battery cells 21; a motor 1; a motor driver 30 with power switching unit 31; and a controller 13, the controller is configured to work as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta et al (US Publication 2015/0084554) and Miller et al (US Publication 2015/0333666).
Although one person of ordinary skill in the art would know that detachable batteries comprising a plurality of battery cells can provide different capacities by connecting the plurality of battery cells in either parallel or series configurations, Tsuruta et al does not specifically describe said configurations of battery cells.
However, Miller et al teaches a multi-battery pack for power tools comprising battery cells connected in series (paragraph 0036) for lower capacity battery pack and in parallel (see paragraph 0037) for higher capacity (see paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a battery pack that includes a plurality of battery cells, wherein the battery cells can be configured in either series or parallel, since the different configurations allow the same battery pack to output different voltage/current based on the needs of the power tool (see for example paragraph 0011).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional documents are listed in the attached PTO-892 which teach different methods for controlling the speed of the motor by adjusting PWM signals.
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
