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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on August 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–22 are pending. Claims 10, 17, and 21 have been amended. Claims 12 and 16 have been canceled. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–21 are rejected. Claim 22 is objected to.
This action is non-final. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are applied to independent claim 1, which was not amended in the response filed August 14, 2026, and therefore were not necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 14, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mergener in view of Leong, over Mergener in view of Leong and Schneider, and over Schneider in view of Mergener and Leong have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument that Fig. 4 of Leong does not disclose a pad (68) covering less than 50% of the first side of the annular PCB (60), as now recited in independent claim 10, is persuasive, and the rejections of claims 10, 11, and 13–15 over Mergener in view of Leong, alone and further in view of Schneider, are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the thermally insulating pad (68) of Leong are moot as to the rejections set forth below, because Leong is not relied upon in any new ground. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1–9 and 21 over Mergener in view of Leong, of claim 9 further in view of Schneider, and of claims 17–21 over Schneider in view of Mergener and Leong are withdrawn in favor of the new grounds set forth below. In the first new ground, the primary reference (Lottes) itself locates a motor-control circuit board (65) parallel to the output axis, directly beneath the impact mechanism (70) and the front housing portion (22) and directly above the trigger switch (62), and the secondary reference (Müller) provides a vibration isolator on a power-tool motor-control circuit board for the stated purpose of protecting the board from impact-tool vibration, with no thermal-insulation function.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments concerning Mergener bear on the cumulative ground over Mergener in view of Müller set forth below, they have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Unlike the pad (68) of Leong, which Leong prefers to be of low thermal conductivity, the vibration isolator (11) of Müller is attributed no thermal-insulation function and takes the form of strip-like elements applied along the edges of the printed circuit board (13) or discrete damping parts (11c) at spaced corner locations (Müller ¶[0039]; Figs. 8b–8d). So positioned, the isolator leaves the FETs (124), the heat sink (206), and the surfaces of the combined surfboard PCB (202) swept by the cooling air flow (204) exposed (Mergener col. 6, ll. 15–47), and the proposed combination therefore neither renders Mergener unsatisfactory for its intended, air-cooled purpose nor changes its principle of operation. See MPEP § 2143(V)–(VI).
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 1–11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOTTES (US 2023/0405775 A1) in view of MÜLLER (US 2010/0314147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lottes teaches a power tool (impact wrench 10, Fig. 1; ¶[0023]) comprising:
a housing including a motor housing portion, a front housing portion coupled to the motor housing portion, and a handle portion extending from the motor housing portion(housing 14; motor housing portion 18; impact case or front housing portion 22 coupled to motor housing portion 18 by fasteners 24; handle portion 26 extending downwardly from motor housing portion 18; Fig. 1; ¶[0023]);
a motor supported within the motor housing portion(brushless DC motor 42 supported within motor housing portion 18; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0025], [0029]);
an output driven by the motor to rotate about an axis, the output extending from the front housing portion(anvil 126 driven by motor 42 through gear assembly 66 and drive assembly 70, rotatable about axis 54, extending from front housing portion 22; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0029], [0032], [0041]);
an actuator supported by the handle portion and configured to control operation of the motor(trigger switch 62 supported at the upper end of handle portion 26, selectively connecting motor 42 to battery 34 to activate the motor; Figs. 1–2; ¶[0029], [0049], [0054]);
a circuit board supported within an accommodating region between the actuator and the front housing portion(second PCBA 65 positioned within handle portion 26 adjacent its top end, generally between switch 62 and motor 42, ¶[0030]; Figs. 2–3, PCBA 65 lying directly above trigger switch 62 and directly beneath drive assembly 70 and the bottom side of front housing portion 22).
Lottes is silent wherein a vibration isolator positioned on the circuit board and between the circuit board and the housing. The only vibration-damping element in Lottes is the ring-shaped damping element (27) received between the upper and lower portions (26a, 26b) of the handle, which isolates the battery (34) from operating vibration (¶[0027]–[0028]); Lottes does not address vibration transmitted to the PCBA (65).
However, Müller teaches a power tool (1; percussion drilling machine, impact screwdriver; ¶[0003], [0031]) with a vibration isolator positioned on the circuit board and between the circuit board and the housing(vibration isolator 11 arranged on printed circuit board 13 of motor-control electronic unit 8 so as to face receptacle 10 in housing 4, the isolator thereby lying between board 13 and housing 4; Figs. 1–2, 8b–8d; ¶[0010], [0032], [0035], [0039]).
Müller is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention and to Lottes because it is in the same field of endeavor of hand-held electric power tools, including impact tools, having a motor-control circuit board mounted within the tool housing (Müller ¶[0003]–[0005], [0010]), and because it addresses the problem of protecting such electronics from tool-generated vibration (Müller ¶[0005]–[0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the PCBA (65) of Lottes with a vibration isolator positioned on the board between the board and the housing, as taught by Müller, in order to damp the high-amplitude vibrations that an impact tool deliberately generates before they reach the control electronics, thereby preventing electronic components from being shaken off the board, electrical contacts from opening, and heat sinks from detaching, and thereby increasing the functional reliability and service life of the tool (Müller ¶[0005]–[0008], [0021]). Lottes itself recognizes that operation of its impact wrench transmits vibration to components carried in the handle (Lottes ¶[0022], [0028]), and applying Müller’s known board-mounted isolator to the handle-mounted PCBA (65) of Lottes would have yielded the predictable result of a vibration-damped control board. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–17 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is configured to reduce the transfer of vibration generated by operation of the power tool to the circuit board(isolator 11 damps the electronic unit 8 so that it is largely protected from the effect of vibrations of the power tool; ¶[0008], [0010], [0021], [0032]).
One would be motivated to configure the isolator to reduce vibration transfer to the circuit board in order to prevent the release of connections and electrical contacts and the destruction of individual parts of the electronic unit under heavy-duty use (Müller ¶[0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 3/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes is silent wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam(microcellular rubber strips, i.e., foam rubber, pressed between the switch and the handle shells of a power tool to reduce the effects of vibration, ¶[0005]; the vibration isolator may be made of rubber or another elastic material, ¶[0011]).
One would be motivated to form the isolator of microcellular foam rubber in order to employ an elastic material already used in power tools for damping vibration at the switch-to-handle interface (Müller ¶[0005], [0011]), the selection of one known vibration-damping elastic material in place of another being a simple substitution yielding predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 4/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is compressed between the circuit board and the housing(the elastomer of the isolator is pressed in with oversize when the module is fitted into the housing receptacle, being compressed and thereafter acting in a damping manner; ¶[0016]).
One would be motivated to compress the isolator between the circuit board and the housing in order to obtain a permanent tight seating of the board that compensates for mechanical tolerances and eliminates the mechanical degree of freedom that gives rise to critical natural vibrations (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 5/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is adhered to the circuit board(isolator fastened to printed circuit board 13, ¶[0010], [0035]; damping part attached by adhesive bonding, ¶[0017]; strip-like isolator 11a produced by applying an elastomer paste directly to board 13, ¶[0039], Fig. 8b).
One would be motivated to adhere the isolator to the circuit board in order to keep the isolator in its intended position on the board rather than loose within the housing (Müller ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 6/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes further teaches wherein the circuit board includes a plurality of semi-conductor switching elements(second PCBA 65 includes a plurality of semi-conductor switching elements, e.g., MOSFETs or IGBTs, that control and distribute power to the stator windings; ¶[0030]).
Regarding claim 7/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes further teaches wherein the circuit board extends parallel to the axis(PCBA 65 extends along the top of handle portion 26 parallel to axis 54; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0029]–[0030]).
Regarding claim 8/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes further teaches wherein the actuator is a trigger movable in a direction parallel to the axis(trigger switch 62 with a plunger at the front of handle portion 26 that is depressed rearward parallel to axis 54; Fig. 2; ¶[0029], [0046], [0049], [0054]).
Lottes is silent wherein the trigger is moved to vary an operating speed of the motor, describing switch 62 only as selectively connecting motor 42 to battery 34 (¶[0029]).
However, Müller teaches wherein the actuator is a trigger movable to vary an operating speed of the motor(actuating member 6 of switch 5 moved manually by the user like a variable-speed switch to set the speed of electric motor 2 through electronic unit 8; ¶[0034]).
One would be motivated to make the trigger of Lottes a variable-speed trigger in order to allow the user to set the speed of the motor by the extent of trigger travel (Müller ¶[0010], [0034]).
Regarding claim 9/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes further teaches wherein the housing includes cooperating clamshell halves defining the motor housing portion and the handle portion(first and second clamshell halves 28a, 28b define handle portion 26 and motor housing portion 18; ¶[0023], [0031]), wherein the clamshell halves define an upper wall of the accommodating region, the upper wall extending adjacent a bottom side of the front housing portion(the wall lying directly above PCBA 65 is the lower wall of gear housing portion 74, which is defined by clamshell halves 28a, 28b and extends forward to abut the bottom side of front housing portion 22; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0032], [0034]).
Lottes is silent wherein the vibration isolator is compressed between the circuit board and the upper wall.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is arranged on the face of the circuit board that faces the housing wall receiving the board and is compressed between the circuit board and that housing wall(isolator 11 on board 13 facing receptacle 10 in housing 4, ¶[0010], [0032], [0035]; elastomer pressed in with oversize and compressed when fitted, ¶[0016]). Applied to Lottes, in which the upper face of PCBA 65 lies against the clamshell-defined upper wall of the accommodating region (Lottes Figs. 2–3), the isolator of Müller is compressed between the circuit board and the upper wall.
One would be motivated to compress the isolator between the circuit board and the upper wall in order to obtain a permanent, tolerance-compensating tight seating of the board against the housing that prevents critical natural vibrations of the board (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Lottes teaches a power tool (impact wrench 10, Fig. 1; ¶[0023]) comprising:
a housing including a motor housing portion, a front housing portion coupled to the motor housing portion, and a handle portion extending from the motor housing portion(housing 14; motor housing portion 18; front housing portion 22 coupled to motor housing portion 18 by fasteners 24; handle portion 26 extending downwardly from motor housing portion 18; Fig. 1; ¶[0023]);
a motor supported within the motor housing portion(brushless DC motor 42 within motor housing portion 18; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0025], [0029]);
an impact mechanism driven by the motor to deliver rotational impacts to an output extending from the front housing portion, the output being rotatable about an axis(drive assembly 70, comprising camshaft 94, hammer 130, and spring 134, driven by motor 42 through gear assembly 66, hammer 130 imparting periodic rotational impacts to anvil 126, which extends from front housing portion 22 and rotates about axis 54; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0029], [0032], [0041]–[0042]);
an actuator supported by the handle portion and configured to control operation of the motor(trigger switch 62 at the upper end of handle portion 26, selectively connecting motor 42 to battery 34; Figs. 1–2; ¶[0029], [0049], [0054]);
a circuit board extending parallel to the axis, the circuit board supported within the housing and including a first side facing the impact mechanism and a second side facing the actuator(second PCBA 65 positioned within handle portion 26 adjacent its top end and extending parallel to axis 54, ¶[0030]; Figs. 2–3, the upper face of PCBA 65 facing drive assembly 70 above the board and the lower face of PCBA 65 facing trigger switch 62 below the board).
Lottes is silent wherein a vibration isolator positioned on the first side of the circuit board and covering less than 50% of the first side of the circuit board. The only vibration-damping element in Lottes is damping element (27) between the upper and lower handle portions (26a, 26b), which isolates the battery (34) (¶[0027]–[0028]); Lottes does not address vibration transmitted to the PCBA (65).
However, Müller teaches a power tool (1; percussion drilling machine, impact screwdriver; ¶[0003], [0031]) with a vibration isolator positioned on the first side of the circuit board(vibration isolator 11 arranged on the face of printed circuit board 13 of motor-control electronic unit 8 that faces receptacle 10 in housing 4; Figs. 2, 8b–8d; ¶[0010], [0032], [0035], [0039]) and covering less than 50% of the first side of the circuit board(strip-like isolator 11a applied only along the edges of the face of board 13, Fig. 8b, ¶[0039]; discrete damping parts 11c attached at four spaced locations on board 13, Fig. 8d, ¶[0039]; in each configuration the isolator occupies only a small fraction of the board face, leaving the majority of the face uncovered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the PCBA (65) of Lottes with a vibration isolator positioned on its first side and covering less than 50% of that side, as taught by Müller, in order to damp the vibrations that the impact mechanism deliberately generates before they reach the control electronics, thereby preventing components from being shaken off the board and contacts from opening, and increasing the functional reliability and service life of the tool (Müller ¶[0005]–[0008], [0021]). The first side of the PCBA (65) of Lottes is the face that confronts the housing wall above the board (Lottes Figs. 2–3), which is the face on which Müller places the isolator (Müller ¶[0010]), and Müller’s edge strips or discrete damping parts damp the board while leaving the remainder of the face free for components (Müller ¶[0039]). Applying this known board-mounted isolator to the handle-mounted PCBA (65) of Lottes would have yielded the predictable result of a vibration-damped control board. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416–17.
Regarding claim 11/10, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is configured to reduce the transfer of vibration generated by operation of the power tool to the circuit board(isolator 11 damps the electronic unit 8 so that it is largely protected from the effect of vibrations of the power tool; ¶[0008], [0010], [0021], [0032]).
One would be motivated to configure the isolator to reduce vibration transfer to the circuit board in order to prevent the release of connections and electrical contacts and the destruction of individual parts of the electronic unit under heavy-duty use (Müller ¶[0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 13/10, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Lottes is silent wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam and compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the housing.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam(microcellular rubber strips, i.e., foam rubber, used to damp vibration between a switch and the handle shells of a power tool, ¶[0005]; isolator of rubber or another elastic material, ¶[0011]) and compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the housing(isolator on the face of board 13 facing housing receptacle 10, ¶[0010], [0035]; elastomer pressed in with oversize and compressed when fitted, ¶[0016]).
One would be motivated to form the isolator of microcellular foam rubber and to compress it between the first side of the board and the housing in order to employ an elastic material already used for damping power-tool vibration (Müller ¶[0005], [0011]) and to obtain a permanent, tolerance-compensating tight seating of the board that prevents critical natural vibrations (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 14/10, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Lottes further teaches wherein the circuit board is supported within an accommodating region between the front housing portion and the actuator(PCBA 65 within handle portion 26 adjacent its top end, ¶[0030]; Figs. 2–3, PCBA 65 lying directly beneath the bottom side of front housing portion 22 and directly above trigger switch 62).
Regarding claim 15/14, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 14.
Lottes further teaches wherein the housing includes cooperating clamshell halves defining the motor housing portion and the handle portion(clamshell halves 28a, 28b define handle portion 26 and motor housing portion 18; ¶[0023], [0031]), wherein the clamshell halves define an upper wall of the accommodating region, the upper wall extending adjacent a bottom side of the front housing portion(the wall directly above PCBA 65 is the lower wall of gear housing portion 74, defined by clamshell halves 28a, 28b and extending forward to abut the bottom side of front housing portion 22; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0032], [0034]).
Lottes is silent wherein the vibration isolator is compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the upper wall.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is arranged on the face of the circuit board that faces the housing wall receiving the board and is compressed between the circuit board and that housing wall(isolator 11 on board 13 facing receptacle 10 in housing 4, ¶[0010], [0032], [0035]; elastomer pressed in with oversize and compressed when fitted, ¶[0016]). Applied to Lottes, in which the upper (first) face of PCBA 65 lies against the clamshell-defined upper wall (Lottes Figs. 2–3), the isolator of Müller is compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the upper wall.
One would be motivated to compress the isolator between the first side of the circuit board and the upper wall in order to obtain a permanent, tolerance-compensating tight seating of the board against the housing that prevents critical natural vibrations of the board (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Lottes teaches a power tool (impact wrench 10, Fig. 1; ¶[0023]) comprising:
a housing including cooperating clamshell halves defining a motor housing portion and a handle portion extending from the motor housing portion, the housing further including a front housing portion coupled to the clamshell halves(housing 14; first and second clamshell halves 28a, 28b defining motor housing portion 18 and handle portion 26 extending downwardly therefrom; impact case or front housing portion 22 coupled by fasteners 24 to the motor housing portion defined by halves 28a, 28b and sealed to the halves by annular sealing element 75c; Figs. 1–3; ¶[0023], [0031], [0034]);
a motor supported within the motor housing portion(brushless DC motor 42 within motor housing portion 18; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0025], [0029]);
an output driven by the motor to rotate about an axis, the output extending from the front housing portion(anvil 126 driven by motor 42 through gear assembly 66 and drive assembly 70, rotatable about axis 54, extending from front housing portion 22; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0029], [0032], [0041]);
an impact mechanism within the front housing portion and between the motor and the output(drive assembly 70, comprising camshaft 94, hammer 130, and spring 134, housed within front housing portion 22 between gear assembly 66/motor 42 and anvil 126; Figs. 2–3; ¶[0029], [0032], [0041]–[0042]);
an actuator supported by the handle portion and configured to control operation of the motor(trigger switch 62 at the upper end of handle portion 26, selectively connecting motor 42 to battery 34; Figs. 1–2; ¶[0029], [0049], [0054]);
a circuit board supported within an accommodating region between the actuator and the front housing portion, wherein the clamshell halves define an upper wall of the accommodating region, the upper wall extending adjacent a bottom side of the front housing portion(second PCBA 65 within handle portion 26 adjacent its top end, ¶[0030]; Figs. 2–3, PCBA 65 lying directly above trigger switch 62 and directly beneath front housing portion 22, with the wall directly above PCBA 65 being the lower wall of gear housing portion 74, which is defined by clamshell halves 28a, 28b and extends forward to abut the bottom side of front housing portion 22; ¶[0032], [0034]).
Lottes is silent wherein a vibration isolator positioned between the circuit board and the upper wall and between the impact mechanism and the actuator. The only vibration-damping element in Lottes is damping element (27) between the upper and lower handle portions (26a, 26b), which isolates the battery (34) (¶[0027]–[0028]); Lottes does not address vibration transmitted to the PCBA (65).
However, Müller teaches a power tool (1; percussion drilling machine, impact screwdriver; ¶[0003], [0031]) with a vibration isolator positioned on a motor-control circuit board between the circuit board and the housing wall that receives it(vibration isolator 11 arranged on printed circuit board 13 of electronic unit 8 so as to face receptacle 10 in housing 4; Figs. 1–2, 8b–8d; ¶[0010], [0032], [0035], [0039]). Applied to Lottes, in which the upper face of PCBA 65 confronts the clamshell-defined upper wall and the board lies directly beneath drive assembly 70 and directly above trigger switch 62 (Lottes Figs. 2–3), the isolator of Müller is positioned between the circuit board and the upper wall and between the impact mechanism and the actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the PCBA (65) of Lottes with a vibration isolator positioned between the board and the upper wall of the accommodating region, as taught by Müller, in order to damp the high-amplitude vibrations that the impact mechanism deliberately generates before they reach the control electronics, thereby preventing electronic components from being shaken off the board, contacts from opening, and heat sinks from detaching, and increasing the functional reliability and service life of the tool (Müller ¶[0005]–[0008], [0021]). Lottes itself recognizes that operation of its impact wrench transmits vibration to components carried in the handle (Lottes ¶[0022], [0028]), and applying Müller’s known board-mounted isolator to the PCBA (65) of Lottes would have yielded the predictable result of a vibration-damped control board. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416–17.
Regarding claim 19/17, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 17.
Lottes is silent wherein the vibration isolator includes foam compressed between the circuit board and the upper wall.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator includes foam(microcellular rubber strips, i.e., foam rubber, used to damp vibration between a switch and the handle shells of a power tool, ¶[0005]; isolator of rubber or another elastic material, ¶[0011]) compressed between the circuit board and the housing wall receiving the board(isolator 11 on board 13 facing receptacle 10, ¶[0010], [0035]; elastomer pressed in with oversize and compressed when fitted, ¶[0016]), which in Lottes is the clamshell-defined upper wall above PCBA 65 (Lottes Figs. 2–3).
One would be motivated to form the isolator of microcellular foam rubber and to compress it between the circuit board and the upper wall in order to employ an elastic material already used for damping power-tool vibration (Müller ¶[0005], [0011]) and to obtain a permanent, tolerance-compensating tight seating of the board that prevents critical natural vibrations (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 20/17, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 17.
Lottes further teaches wherein the actuator is a trigger(trigger switch 62; ¶[0029], [0049]).
Lottes is silent wherein the trigger is configured to control an operating speed of the motor, describing switch 62 only as selectively connecting motor 42 to battery 34 (¶[0029]).
However, Müller teaches wherein the actuator is a trigger configured to control an operating speed of the motor(actuating member 6 of switch 5 moved by the user like a variable-speed switch to set the speed of electric motor 2 through electronic unit 8; ¶[0034]).
One would be motivated to make the trigger of Lottes a variable-speed trigger in order to allow the user to set the speed of the motor by the extent of trigger travel (Müller ¶[0010], [0034]).
Regarding claim 21/1, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Lottes further teaches wherein the handle portion extends from the motor housing portion in a direction perpendicular to the axis(handle portion 26 extends downwardly from motor housing portion 18, ¶[0023]; Figs. 1–2, handle portion 26 extending transversely to axis 54; Fig. 8, overall height OH of the tool measured along the handle, which Lottes describes as the height measured perpendicular to the axis, Lottes claim 16).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOTTES (US 2023/0405775 A1) in view of MÜLLER (US 2010/0314147 A1) and further in view of MERGENER (US 9,774,229 B1).
Regarding claim 18/17, Lottes in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 17.
Lottes is silent wherein the actuator is a multi-position switch, describing switch 62 only as a trigger switch (¶[0029]).
However, Mergener teaches a brushless impact wrench (250; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 33–46) wherein the actuator is a multi-position switch(forward/reverse selector 110 having three positions—forward, reverse, and neutral—that operates forward/reverse switch 203 to signal motor control unit 130 to rotate motor 126 clockwise, counterclockwise, or not at all when trigger 112 is depressed; Fig. 1; col.4, ll. 30–46; forward/reverse switch 203 carried on combined surfboard PCB 202 adjacent trigger 112, col.8, ll. 22–35).
Mergener is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention and to Lottes because it is in the same field of endeavor of brushless cordless impact wrenches having a motor-control circuit board mounted within the housing above the trigger (Mergener col. 8, ll. 8–22; col. 9, ll. 33–46). One would be motivated to provide the power tool of Lottes with a three-position forward/reverse selector, supported on the handle portion adjacent the trigger and controlling operation of the motor as taught by Mergener, in order to allow the user to select forward rotation for tightening a fastener, reverse rotation for loosening it, or a neutral position in which the motor does not rotate (Mergener col.4, ll. 30–46 ). Because the selector so provided lies at the top of the handle portion beneath the PCBA (65) of Lottes, the vibration isolator positioned between the board and the upper wall remains between the impact mechanism (70) and the actuator. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416.
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERGENER (US 9,774,229 B1) in view of MÜLLER (US 2010/0314147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mergener teaches a power tool (250, brushless impact wrench; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 33–46) comprising:
a housing including a motor housing portion, a front housing portion coupled to the motor housing portion, and a handle portion extending from the motor housing portion(housing 256 including motor housing portion 260; front housing portion, i.e., the portion of housing 256 housing the impact mechanism 254 and from which impact output unit 252 extends, coupled to motor housing portion 260; handle portion 258 extending from motor housing portion 260; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 38–46);
a motor supported within the motor housing portion(motor 126 supported within motor housing portion 260; col. 9, ll. 40–42);
an output driven by the motor to rotate about an axis, the output extending from the front housing portion(impact output unit 252 driven by motor 126 to rotate about the axis of motor shaft 158, the output unit 252 extending from the front housing portion; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 33–37);
an actuator supported by the handle portion and configured to control operation of the motor(trigger 112 supported by handle portion 258 and configured to control operation of motor 126; col. 4, ll. 38–46; col. 9, ll. 33–46);
a circuit board supported within an accommodating region between the actuator and the front housing portion(combined surfboard PCB 202 supported within region 211, above trigger 112 and below motor 126 and drive mechanism 148/impact mechanism 254, which are housed toward the front housing portion side of the tool; col. 8, ll. 8–22; Figs. 6–7, 9–11).
Mergener is silent wherein a vibration isolator positioned on the circuit board and between the circuit board and the housing.
However, Müller teaches a power tool (1; percussion drilling machine, impact screwdriver; ¶[0003], [0031]) with a vibration isolator positioned on the circuit board and between the circuit board and the housing(vibration isolator 11 arranged on printed circuit board 13 of motor-control electronic unit 8 so as to face receptacle 10 in housing 4, the isolator thereby lying between board 13 and housing 4; Figs. 1–2, 8b–8d; ¶[0010], [0032], [0035], [0039]).
Müller is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention and to Mergener because it is in the same field of endeavor of hand-held electric power tools, including impact tools, having a motor-control circuit board mounted within the tool housing (Müller ¶[0003]–[0005], [0010]), and because it addresses the problem of protecting such electronics from tool-generated vibration (Müller ¶[0005]–[0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the combined surfboard PCB (202) of Mergener with a vibration isolator positioned on the board between the board and the housing, as taught by Müller, in order to damp the high-amplitude vibrations that an impact tool deliberately generates before they reach the control electronics, thereby preventing electronic components from being shaken off the board, electrical contacts from opening, and heat sinks from detaching, and thereby increasing the functional reliability and service life of the tool (Müller ¶[0005]–[0008], [0021]). Because the isolator of Müller takes the form of strip-like elements along the edges of the board or discrete damping parts at spaced corner locations, with no thermal-insulation function (Müller ¶[0039]; Figs. 8b–8d), it leaves the FETs (124), the heat sink (206), and the board surfaces swept by the cooling air flow (204) of Mergener exposed (Mergener col. 6, ll. 15–47), and the modification does not disturb Mergener’s exposed, air-cooled construction. Applying Müller’s known board-mounted isolator to the PCB (202) of Mergener would have yielded the predictable result of a vibration-damped control board. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–17 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is configured to reduce the transfer of vibration generated by operation of the power tool to the circuit board(isolator 11 damps the electronic unit 8 so that it is largely protected from the effect of vibrations of the power tool; ¶[0008], [0010], [0021], [0032]).
One would be motivated to configure the isolator to reduce vibration transfer to the circuit board in order to prevent the release of connections and electrical contacts and the destruction of individual parts of the electronic unit under heavy-duty use (Müller ¶[0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 3/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Mergener is silent wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam(microcellular rubber strips, i.e., foam rubber, pressed between the switch and the handle shells of a power tool to reduce the effects of vibration, ¶[0005]; the vibration isolator may be made of rubber or another elastic material, ¶[0011]).
One would be motivated to form the isolator of microcellular foam rubber in order to employ an elastic material already used in power tools for damping vibration at the switch-to-handle interface (Müller ¶[0005], [0011]), the selection of one known vibration-damping elastic material in place of another being a simple substitution yielding predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 4/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is compressed between the circuit board and the housing(the elastomer of the isolator is pressed in with oversize when the module is fitted into the housing receptacle, being compressed and thereafter acting in a damping manner; ¶[0016]).
One would be motivated to compress the isolator between the circuit board and the housing in order to obtain a permanent tight seating of the board that compensates for mechanical tolerances and eliminates the mechanical degree of freedom that gives rise to critical natural vibrations (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 5/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is adhered to the circuit board(isolator fastened to printed circuit board 13, ¶[0010], [0035]; damping part attached by adhesive bonding, ¶[0017]; strip-like isolator 11a produced by applying an elastomer paste directly to board 13, ¶[0039], Fig. 8b).
One would be motivated to adhere the isolator to the circuit board in order to keep the isolator in its intended position on the board rather than loose within the housing (Müller ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 6/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Mergener further teaches wherein the circuit board includes a plurality of semi-conductor switching elements(combined surfboard PCB 202 includes FETs 124; Figs. 6–7, 8A–C; col. 4, ll. 11–26; col. 7, ll. 4–25).
Regarding claim 7/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Mergener further teaches wherein the circuit board extends parallel to the axis(a top surface of the combined surfboard PCB 202 is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of motor shaft 158; col. 7, ll. 56–60; Figs. 6–7).
Regarding claim 8/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Mergener further teaches wherein the actuator is a trigger movable in a direction parallel to the axis to vary an operating speed of the motor(trigger 112 is depressed in a direction generally parallel to motor shaft 158 to provide variable user input to motor control unit 130; col. 4, ll. 38–46; Figs. 1, 6–7, 9–11).
Regarding claim 10, Mergener teaches a power tool (250, brushless impact wrench; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 33–46) comprising:
a housing including a motor housing portion, a front housing portion coupled to the motor housing portion, and a handle portion extending from the motor housing portion(housing 256 including motor housing portion 260; front housing portion, i.e., the portion of housing 256 housing the impact mechanism 254 and from which impact output unit 252 extends; handle portion 258; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 38–46);
a motor supported within the motor housing portion(motor 126 within motor housing portion 260; col. 9, ll. 40–42);
an impact mechanism driven by the motor to deliver rotational impacts to an output extending from the front housing portion, the output being rotatable about an axis(impact mechanism 254 driven by motor 126 to deliver rotational impacts to impact output unit 252 extending from the front housing portion, rotatable about the axis of motor shaft 158; Figs. 9–11; col. 9, ll. 33–37);
an actuator supported by the handle portion and configured to control operation of the motor(trigger 112 supported by handle portion 258; col. 4, ll. 38–46; col. 9, ll. 33–46);
a circuit board extending parallel to the axis, the circuit board supported within the housing and including a first side facing the impact mechanism and a second side facing the actuator(combined surfboard PCB 202 extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of motor shaft 158, col. 7, ll. 56–60; PCB 202 supported within housing 256 in region 211, with its top surface facing motor 126 and drive mechanism 148/impact mechanism 254 positioned above it and its bottom surface facing trigger 112 positioned below it; col. 7, ll. 50–60; col. 8, ll. 8–22; Figs. 6–7, 9–11).
Mergener is silent wherein a vibration isolator positioned on the first side of the circuit board and covering less than 50% of the first side of the circuit board.
However, Müller teaches a power tool (1; percussion drilling machine, impact screwdriver; ¶[0003], [0031]) with a vibration isolator positioned on the first side of the circuit board(vibration isolator 11 arranged on the face of printed circuit board 13 of motor-control electronic unit 8 that faces receptacle 10 in housing 4; Figs. 2, 8b–8d; ¶[0010], [0032], [0035], [0039]) and covering less than 50% of the first side of the circuit board(strip-like isolator 11a applied only along the edges of the face of board 13, Fig. 8b, ¶[0039]; discrete damping parts 11c attached at four spaced locations on board 13, Fig. 8d, ¶[0039]; in each configuration the isolator occupies only a small fraction of the board face, leaving the majority of the face uncovered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the combined surfboard PCB (202) of Mergener with a vibration isolator positioned on its first side and covering less than 50% of that side, as taught by Müller, in order to damp the vibrations that the impact mechanism deliberately generates before they reach the control electronics, thereby preventing components from being shaken off the board and contacts from opening, and increasing the functional reliability and service life of the tool (Müller ¶[0005]–[0008], [0021]). Because Müller’s edge strips or discrete damping parts occupy only peripheral locations on the board face and have no thermal-insulation function (Müller ¶[0039]; Figs. 8b–8d), they leave the heat sink (206) mounted on that face and the cooling air flow (204) across the board unobstructed (Mergener col. 6, ll. 15–67), and the modification does not disturb Mergener’s exposed, air-cooled construction. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416–17.
Regarding claim 11/10, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Müller further teaches wherein the vibration isolator is configured to reduce the transfer of vibration generated by operation of the power tool to the circuit board(isolator 11 damps the electronic unit 8 so that it is largely protected from the effect of vibrations of the power tool; ¶[0008], [0010], [0021], [0032]).
One would be motivated to configure the isolator to reduce vibration transfer to the circuit board in order to prevent the release of connections and electrical contacts and the destruction of individual parts of the electronic unit under heavy-duty use (Müller ¶[0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 13/10, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Mergener is silent wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam and compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the housing.
However, Müller teaches wherein the vibration isolator is made of foam(microcellular rubber strips, i.e., foam rubber, used to damp vibration between a switch and the handle shells of a power tool, ¶[0005]; isolator of rubber or another elastic material, ¶[0011]) and compressed between the first side of the circuit board and the housing(isolator on the face of board 13 facing housing receptacle 10, ¶[0010], [0032], [0035]; elastomer pressed in with oversize and compressed when fitted, ¶[0016]).
One would be motivated to form the isolator of microcellular foam rubber and to compress it between the first side of the board and the housing in order to employ an elastic material already used for damping power-tool vibration (Müller ¶[0005], [0011]) and to obtain a permanent, tolerance-compensating tight seating of the board that prevents critical natural vibrations (Müller ¶[0013], [0019]).
Regarding claim 14/10, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 10.
Mergener further teaches wherein the circuit board is supported within an accommodating region between the front housing portion and the actuator(combined surfboard PCB 202 is located in region 211, above trigger 112 and below motor 126 and drive mechanism 148/impact mechanism 254, which are housed within the front housing portion side of the tool; col. 8, ll. 8–22; Figs. 6–7, 9–11).
Regarding claim 21/1, Mergener in view of Müller teaches the power tool of claim 1.
Mergener further teaches wherein the handle portion extends from the motor housing portion in a direction perpendicular to the axis(handle portion 258 extends downward from motor housing portion 260 in a pistol-grip configuration substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis of motor shaft 158; Figs. 9–11; see also Figs. 1, 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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. The closest prior art of record is Lottes (US 2023/0405775 A1), Müller (US 2010/0314147 A1), Mergener (US 9,774,229 B1), Leong (US 2010/0149790 A1), and Schneider (US 2019/0255687 A1). None of the references, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests a power tool as recited in claim 1 wherein “the housing includes recesses which support edges of the circuit board within the accommodating region and the vibration isolator is positioned on a central portion of the circuit board between the edges,” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights