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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pull-up resistor for the Hall effect sensor” in claims 3, 10 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al. (US 2016/0336838 A1) in view of Takano et al. (US 2020/0059137 A1).
RE claim 1, Kouda teaches a power tool 1 (Figs.1, 3) including:
a housing 6 (Fig.3);
a battery pack interface (on lower end of handle 3, see Fig.1 and ¶ 49) configured to receive a battery pack 5;
an electric motor 8 within the housing 6, the electric motor 8 having a no-load operating speed of at least 35,000 rotations per minute (“RPM”) (see ¶ 119 for 30,000-40,000 rpm), the electric motor 8 including:
a stator 9 including a stator core 60 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) having stator teeth 63 and stator laminations (¶ 64), and
a rotor 10 including a rotor shaft 11 and a rotor magnet 68;
a controller 20 configured to control an operating speed of the electric motor 8 (¶ 49); and
a Hall effect sensor 66 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) connected to the controller 20
Kouda does not teach:
the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet,
wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond.
RE (i) above, Takano teaches the sensor 60 configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet 50 (see ¶ 51), such that the angular position of the rotor may be detected based on the output signal from each of the Hall ICs (¶ 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet, as suggested by Takano, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, in ¶ 119, Kouda teaches the rotational speed of the brushless motor that constitutes the drive source is in the range of 30,000-40,000 rpm.
Therefore, assuming the rotation is 40,000 rpm,
The number of revolutions can be calculated as follow:
60
s
e
c
/
m
i
n
40,000
r
e
v
/
m
i
n
=
1.5
x
10
-
3
sec
=
1.5
m
s
p
e
r
r
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
For a permanent-magnet synchronous machine:
Electrical cycle per revolution = number of pole pairs = P = 2 (see Fig.9 for four poles, and therefore 2 pole pairs).
Therefore, electrical cycle period =
1.5
m
s
2
=
0.75
m
s
=
750
µ
s
Therefore, Kouda suggests that the signal at maximum transition time of less than a millisecond (0.75 ms) and also suggests that the timing of energization can be optimized such that losses can be prevented and thereby increase motor efficiency (¶ 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond, as suggested by Kouda, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 8, Kouda teaches a power tool 1 (Figs.1, 3) including:
a housing 6 (Fig.3);
a battery pack interface (on lower end of handle 3, see Fig.1 and ¶ 49) configured to receive a battery pack 5;
an electric motor 8 within the housing 6, the electric motor 8 having a no-load operating speed of at least 40,000 rotations per minute (“RPM”) (see ¶ 119 for 30,000-40,000 rpm), the electric motor 8 including:
a stator 9 including a stator core 60 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) having stator teeth 63 and stator laminations (¶ 64), and
a rotor 10 including a rotor shaft 11 and a rotor magnet 68;
a controller 20 connected to the electric motor 8, the controller 20 configured to control an operating speed of the electric motor 8 (¶ 49); and
a Hall effect sensor 66 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) connected to the controller 20
Kouda does not teach:
the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet,
wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond.
RE (i) above, Takano teaches the sensor 60 configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet 50 (see ¶ 51), such that the angular position of the rotor may be detected based on the output signal from each of the Hall ICs (¶ 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet, as suggested by Takano, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, in ¶ 119, Kouda teaches the rotational speed of the brushless motor that constitutes the drive source is in the range of 30,000-40,000 rpm.
Therefore, assuming the rotation is 40,000 rpm,
The number of revolutions can be calculated as follow:
60
s
e
c
/
m
i
n
40,000
r
e
v
/
m
i
n
=
1.5
x
10
-
3
sec
=
1.5
m
s
p
e
r
r
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
For a permanent-magnet synchronous machine:
Electrical cycle per revolution = number of pole pairs = P = 2 (see Fig.9 for four poles, and therefore 2 pole pairs).
Therefore, electrical cycle period =
1.5
m
s
2
=
0.75
m
s
=
750
µ
s
Therefore, Kouda suggests that the signal at maximum transition time of less than a millisecond (0.75 ms) and also suggests that the timing of energization can be optimized such that losses can be prevented and thereby increase motor efficiency (¶ 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond, as suggested by Kouda, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 15, Kouda teaches a power tool 1 (Figs.1, 3) including:
a housing 6 (Fig.3);
a battery pack interface (on lower end of handle 3, see Fig.1 and ¶ 49) configured to receive a battery pack 5;
an electric motor 8 within the housing 6, the electric motor 8 having a no-load operating speed of at least 45,000 rotations per minute (“RPM”) (see ¶ 78, 100, 121 for the speed of the rotor can be greater than 24,000 RPM), the electric motor 8 including:
a stator 9 including a stator core 60 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) having stator teeth 63 and stator laminations (¶ 64), and
a rotor 10 including a rotor shaft 11 and a rotor magnet 68;
a controller 20 connected to the electric motor 8, the controller 20 configured to control an operating speed of the electric motor 8 (¶ 49); and
a Hall effect sensor 66 (Fig.9 and ¶ 64) connected to the controller 20
Kouda does not teach:
the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet,
wherein the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond.
RE (i) above, Takano teaches the sensor 60 configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet 50 (see ¶ 51), such that the angular position of the rotor may be detected based on the output signal from each of the Hall ICs (¶ 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the sensor configured to transition between a low-level output signal to a high-level output signal in response to sensing the rotor magnet, as suggested by Takano, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, in ¶ 119, Kouda teaches the rotational speed of the brushless motor that constitutes the drive source is in the range of 30,000-40,000 rpm.
Therefore, assuming the rotation is 40,000 rpm,
The number of revolutions can be calculated as follow:
60
s
e
c
/
m
i
n
40,000
r
e
v
/
m
i
n
=
1.5
x
10
-
3
sec
=
1.5
m
s
p
e
r
r
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
For a permanent-magnet synchronous machine:
Electrical cycle per revolution = number of pole pairs = P = 2 (see Fig.9 for four poles, and therefore 2 pole pairs).
Therefore, electrical cycle period =
1.5
m
s
2
=
0.75
m
s
=
750
µ
s
Therefore, Kouda suggests that the signal at maximum transition time of less than a millisecond (0.75 ms) and also suggests that the timing of energization can be optimized such that losses can be prevented and thereby increase motor efficiency (¶ 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda by having the Hall effect sensor is configured to transition between the low-level output signal and the high-level output signal at a maximum transition time of less than a millisecond, as suggested by Kouda, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Takano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajzer et al. (US 2022/0311364 A1).
RE claims 2/1, 9/8 and 16/15, Kouda in view of Takano has been discussed above. Kouda does not teach the maximum transition time of the Hall effect sensor is 40 microseconds or less.
Rajzer evidenced that 10 microsecond is well-known transition time for hall sensor in permanent magnet motor (¶ 5). The optimized transition time allows the controller to determine when the transitions would be changing based on past transitions to continue controlling the motor and prevents the motor from ceasing operation (¶ 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Takano by having the maximum transition time of the Hall effect sensor is 40 microseconds or less, as taught by Rajzer, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 6/2, Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer has been discussed above. Kouda further teaches the electric motor has a no-load operating speed of at least 37,000 RPM (¶ 119).
RE claim 13/9, Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer has been discussed above. Kouda teaches the electric motor has a no-load operating speed of at least 43,000 RPM (see ¶ 78, 100, 121 for the speed of the rotor can be greater than 24,000 RPM).
RE claim 19/16, Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer has been discussed above. Kouda further teaches the electric motor has a no-load operating speed of at least 50,000 RPM (see ¶ 78, 100, 121 for the speed of the rotor can be greater than 24,000 RPM).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Bai et al. (CN 115184634 A).
RE claims 3/2, 10/9 and 17/16, Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer has been discussed above. Kouda does not teach a pull-up resistor for the Hall effect sensor has a resistance of 1k ohms or less.
Bai teaches a pull-up resistor for the Hall effect sensor has a resistance of 1k ohms or less (see translation page 6 for hall sensor is provided with 1K pull-up resistor). The Hall sensor rotating speed collecting method and collecting circuit with fault diagnosis of the invention, the single chip through collecting signal collecting end is provided with pulse signal and level signal of the fault feedback circuit, identifying the rotating speed test loop is open circuit, short circuit and sensor itself damage effectively solves the problem that the Hall sensor is installed, before the rotating speed collecting, there is no method to judge whether the sensor is good or bad, it brings inconvenience to use (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer by having a pull-up resistor for the Hall effect sensor has a resistance of 1k ohms or less, as taught by Bai, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Lapp et al. (US 2014/0360210 A1).
RE claims 4/2, 11/9 and 18/16, Kouda has been discussed above. Kouda further teaches the electric motor includes a bearing 31.
Kouda does not teach the bearing including a silicon nitride ball and stainless steel races.
Lapp teaches the bearing (Fig.7) including a silicon nitride ball (¶ 55) and stainless-steel races (¶ 119). the bearings in which they are used are subject to significantly reduced centrifugal force. The higher modulus of elasticity reduces friction in such bearings and makes such bearings stiffer, which reduces distortion and friction (¶ 56). Further, such bearing compositions result in significant life improvements over conventional bearing steels and are critical to the success of refrigerant lubrication of hybrid ceramic rolling element bearings in centrifugal chillers (¶ 119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Takano, as taught by Lapp, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Takano, Rajzer and Lapp as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2019/0115811 A1).
RE claims 5/4 and 12/11, Kouda in view of Takano has been discussed above. Kouda does not teach the stator laminations have a thickness of 0.2 millimeters.
Yoshinaga teaches stator laminations have a thickness of 0.2 millimeters (¶ 35) for the purpose of obtaining the laminated core having more excellent magnetic characteristics (¶ 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Takano, Rajzer and Lapp by having the stator laminations have a thickness of 0.2 millimeters, as taught by Yoshinaga, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Gouge (US 6218746 B1).
RE claims 7/2, 14/9 and 20/16, Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer has been discussed above. Kouda further teaches a planetary gear assembly 33 (Fig.4 and ¶ 51).
Kouda does not teach said gear assembly has a gear ratio in a range of 15:1 to 25:1
Gouge teaches gear assembly has a gear ratio in a range of 15:1 to 25:1 (see col.3: 45-55). The gear ratio can be adjusted to optimize output power/speed of the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Takano and Rajzer, as taught by Gouge, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights