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 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under Ichikawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of at least Tsuruta et al (US Publication 20150084554). Additionally, rejections under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) will also be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1, the original specification does not reasonably enable the full scope of the claimed invention related to “gradually increasing the current clipping threshold over subsequent intervals” as it does not teach how to implement such algorithm across all possible ramp profiles (linear, stepwise, non-linear exponential) and interval schemes. The original documents do not provide any description about how the “current clipping thresholds” and/or “intervals” are defined. The specification does not provide any indication about the length of each interval or how they can be determined. Claim 1 in its current form intends to cover any discrete step schemes and any ramp profiles. The claimed clipping thresholds are not clearly distinguished from plain current limits, or cut-off thresholds, or shutdown thresholds.
Claim 4, the specification only supports increasing the clipping thresholds to a point (shutdown current threshold). The original documents do not support being able to change the current limit (threshold) indefinitely over any interval schemes (when changing the current threshold based on intervals of time).
Claim 5, the specification only supports gradually incrementing the current limits until a shutdown current limit.
Claims 6-7 and 14, the specification does not describe how time intervals are defined.
Claims 8 and 15,include the same method of operation recited in claim 1.
Claims 11 and 17, the specification does not include a description about how the current limit is incremented as a function of time, since the detailed description of the invention does not include how the time intervals are defined.
Even if a claim has not been individually mentioned in the rejection, all claims are rejected since the ones that have not been mentioned depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim.
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 claim has no clear boundaries. The claimed limitations are subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. How gradual is the increase of the current limits? Is it linear or non-linear? How are the time intervals selected or defined? Do the time intervals equally spaced? Is the current clipping threshold related to a current limit, a cut-off threshold, or shutdown threshold of the power tool?
Claims 2 and 9, is applicant trying to claim the shape of the current signal? How similar are the current curves, do they increase and decrease at the same rate?
Claims 4, 11, and 17, how is the current limit incremented as a function of time?
Claims 5, 12, and 18, is the current limit incremented based on a sensed value of the motor speed?
All claims not specifically mentioned in this rejection are also rejected since they depend directly or indirectly of 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:
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 11-20 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, however 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.
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 ramp-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, 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 limits in incremented in closed-loop and 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 20, Tsuruta et al teaches in figures 2/3 and corresponding descriptions a plurality of duty ratios for a PWM control signal applied to motor 11.
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. The new PTO-892 form include additional documents that describe power tools, wherein the power tools include detachable batteries of different capacities and operate by applying of different current limits at set time intervals during the start-up mode.
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.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights