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 .
Election/Restrictions/Response to Amendment
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 8-17) in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 and 18-20 were previously cancelled.
Claim 28 is now also cancelled.
Claims 8-17, 21-27, 29 and 30 remain pending.
Claims 31-34 are new and now also pending.
Claims 8-17, 21-27, 29-34 are pending and drawn to the elected invention and therefore, examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 16, line 6, “a fan” should instead be “the fan.
-Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 23-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791).
Regarding Claim 8, Wolperding discloses a power tool (10; Figures 1-2) comprising:
a motor housing (14) extending along a first axis (28);
a handle (16) extending from the motor housing (14) along a second axis (34) perpendicular to the first axis (28); and
a motor (20) positioned in the motor housing (14), the motor (20) including a stator (36) supported within the motor housing (14; Para. 0053), a rotor shaft (30) defining a motor axis coaxial with the first axis (28; Para. 0043), and a rotor (42, 44) supported on the rotor shaft (30) for rotation about the motor axis (28; Para. 0053);
a first rotor bearing and a second rotor bearing located external to the rotor (42, 44) and at opposite respective ends of the rotor (42, 44; see “Annotated View of Figure 2” below depicting both rotor bearings), and rotatably supporting the rotor shaft (30), each of the first rotor bearing and the second rotor bearing directly supported by the motor housing (14; as shown the bearings are clearly supported directly by portions of the motor housing 14 or other portions of the housing structure forming the motor housing); and
a fan (46) positioned on the rotor shaft (30) between the first rotor bearing and the second rotor bearing (as shown in “Annotated View of Figure 2” below);
wherein a portion of the rotor shaft (30) defines an output shaft (portion of 30 extending beyond the motor and into spindle 22), and a distal end of the output shaft (30) is configured to couple to a tool holder (spindle 22) configured to receive a cutting tool (i.e. 48; Para. 0060).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 2
However, the output shaft of Wolperding does not readily extend outward from the motor housing (14).
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Lutz which outlines another power tool (10; Figure 1, 2) comprising a rotor shaft (12) that defines a spindle/output shaft (32; Para. 0029) that extends outward from a motor housing (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have integrated the tool spindle of Wolperding with the rotor shaft as taught by Lutz. By modifying Wolperding in this manner, the spindle can be driven directly by the motor as taught by Lutz (Para. 0017, 0037). This further reduces power lost in transmission and further simplifies the construction of the tool.
Regarding Claim 23, Wolperding, as modified, does not disclose the rotor shaft (30) defines a shaft length L1;the rotor shaft defines a bearing span L2 measured between the first rotor bearing and the second rotor bearing; and a ratio of the bearing span L2 to the shaft length L1 is less than or equal to 0.6.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to embody the rotor shaft and bearing positions of Wolperding to be positioned such that the bearing span and shaft length result in the ratio as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of components. Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance the motor construction of Wolperding would perform in the same manner as a device comprising the same dimensions.
Regarding Claim 24, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the shaft length L1 is no greater than 97 mm (see Para. 0044 which outlines the height of the housing 14 is up to 100mm and therefore the shaft must be less than 97mm). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have embodied the shaft to be less than 97mm as “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” per MPEP 2144.05. In this instance, based on the housing being 100mm or less, such a shaft length of 97mm or less must be comprised within the disclosed lengths of the shaft of Wolperding.
Regarding Claim 25, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the rotor shaft (30) and the output shaft (30) are integrally formed (As shown).
Regarding Claims 27 and 30, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the stator (36) defines a stator outside diameter D3, the motor housing (14) defines a housing head diameter D4; and a ratio of the stator outside diameter D3 to the housing head diameter D4 is greater than 0.7 (as clearly shown the stator 36 is nearly abutting the housing in Figure 2) and further discloses the rotor (42) defines a rotor outside diameter D2 (as shown in Figure 2) the stator (36) defines the stator outside diameter D3 and a ratio of the rotor outside diameter D2 to the stator outside diameter D3 is greater than 0.5 (as shown the stator diameter is clearly not twice as large as the rotor diameter).
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to embody the diameters of the stator and rotor of Wolperding to result in the ratios as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of components. Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance the motor construction of Wolperding would perform in the same manner as a device comprising the same dimensions. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Alternatively, Claims 8, 23-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791), and in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A; see attached PDF for English translation including paragraph numbering referred to below)
Regarding Claim 8, assuming arguendo that the first rotor bearing and second rotor bearing are not directly supported by the motor housing, in which the Examiner does not concede to, attention can be brought to the teachings of Umemura which teaches another power tool (101; Figures 1-2) comprising a motor (111) including a rotor (117) and stator (116) and a spindle (121) forming a rotor shaft (of 117) wherein the spindle (121) is supported by bearings (131, 133) positioned at opposite ends of the spindle shaft (121) and wherein the bearings are directly supported by a motor housing (105a, 105b; Para. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have supported the bearings of Wolperding directly with the motor housing as taught by Umemura. By modifying Wolperding in this manner, rotational operation of components such as the rotor and the fan can be stabilized as taught by Umemura (Para. 0023).
Regarding Claims 23-25, 27, and 30, refer to the previous 103 rejection above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791) and, alternatively in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Hirschburger (US PGPUB 2003/0042803-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 22, Wolperding, alone or as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the tool holder is a nut and collet assembly.
Attention is brought to Hirschburger which teaches another power tool (10; Figure 1) comprising a collet (32) and nut (36) assembly (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a collet and nut assembly as taught by Hirschburger in the tool of Wolperding such that tool accessories can be readily inserted in a secure and known manner as taught by Hirschburger (Para. 0027).
Claims 9-14, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791), and, alternatively in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Zhang (US PGPUB 2019/0099873).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Wolperding, as modified, discloses several features including the rotor shaft (30) defines a rotor shaft outside diameter D1 (of 30), wherein the rotor (42) defines a rotor outside diameter D2 (defined by outer diameter of magnets 44 connected to shaft 30) but does not readily disclose a ratio R1 of the rotor outside diameter D2 to the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is less than or equal to 3 and is silent on the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is at least 6 millimeters.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Zhang which include another power tool (100; Figure 1) which includes an electric motor (3; Figure 2) which comprises a stator (31), a rotor (32) and a rotor shaft (33), wherein the rotor shaft comprises a diameter ranging from 7.5-9mm (Para. 0035, 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the shaft of Wolperding to comprise the shaft diameter of 7.5-9mm as taught by Zhang. By modifying the shaft to comprise such a diameter, the deflection of the shaft during increased loads can be readily reduced as taught by Zhang (Para. 0105-0107).
Further note Wolperding discloses the outer diameter of the motor is approximately 38 mm (Para. 0038) and therefore considering the rotor is interior of the stator, the diameter of the rotor in combination with the shaft diameter as incorporated above would readily result in the claimed ratio range.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Wolperding, as modified, would not readily result in the claimed ratio range, in which the Examiner does not concede to, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the diameter of the rotor to obtain such a ratio as such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance the motor/rotor construction of Wolperding, as modified, would perform in the same manner as a device comprising the same dimensions. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Also note a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance Wolperding, as modified, at the very least would comprise such a diameter ratio between the shaft and rotor close to that as claimed.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Wolperding, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a ratio R2 of the stator outside diameter D3 to the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is less than or equal to 6 and wherein the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is at least 6 millimeters, and wherein the stator outside diameter D3 is no greater than 36 millimeters.
Attention can again be brought to Zhang (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the shaft of Wolperding to comprise the shaft diameter of 7.5-9mm as taught by Zhang. By modifying the shaft to comprise such a diameter, the deflection of the shaft during increased loads can be readily reduced as taught by Zhang (Para. 0105-0107).
Further note Wolperding discloses the outer diameter of the motor is approximately 38 mm (Para. 0038) and therefore the outer diameter of the stator (36) is at least close to the claimed 36mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the stator to be 36mm or less as such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance the motor construction of Wolperding would perform in the same manner as a device comprising the same dimensions. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
And lastly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the disclosed 38mm is clearly close to the claimed 36mm.
Regarding Claim 13, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the rotor shaft (30) defines a rotor shaft outside diameter D1, the rotor shaft defines a bearing span L2 measured between the first rotor bearing and the second rotor bearing (as shown) but does not disclose a ratio R3 of the bearing span L2 to the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is less than or equal to 9.5.
Attention can again be brought to Zhang (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the shaft of Wolperding to comprise the shaft diameter of 7.5-9mm as taught by Zhang. By modifying the shaft to comprise such a diameter, the deflection of the shaft during increased loads can be readily reduced as taught by Zhang (Para. 0105-0107). Wolperding discloses the height “h” being 70-90mm, preferably 80mm and therefore the “span length” is clearly much less and with the modified shaft diameter, the claimed ratio would readily be obtained.
Regarding Claim 14, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the rotor shaft outside diameter D1 is at least 6 millimeters (as taught by Zhang), but does not readily disclose the bearing span L2 is no greater than 57 millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the bearing span such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (i.e. the shaft). A change in size is generally recognized as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 26, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the first rotor bearing is positioned proximate the output shaft (of 30; see “Annotated View of Figure 2” above).
Regarding Claim 29, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the fan (46) is positioned between the first rotor bearing and the rotor (44; note that the “first rotor bearing” can be viewed as the bearing closest to the tool 48).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791), and, alternatively in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Oki (US PGPUB 2006/0258274-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 15, Wolperding, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose a vibration damping assembly positioned between the motor housing and the handle, the vibration damping assembly including a first coupling portion defined by the motor housing, a second coupling portion defined by the handle, and an elastomeric damper captured between the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Oki which include a power tool (101; Figure 1) comprising a motor housing (105); a motor (111) positioned in the motor housing (105), a handle (109) coupled to the motor housing (105; Figure 3; Para. 0027), and a vibration damping assembly positioned between the motor housing (105) and the handle (109; Figure 3), the vibration damping assembly including a first coupling portion (“a hollow cylindrical portion 127” including “spherical portion 123”) defined by the motor housing (105; Paras. 0030-0031), a second coupling portion (“enlarged portion 109b” including “concave portion 125”) defined by the handle (109 Figure 3; Para. 0032), and an elastomeric damper (129; Figure 3) captured between the first coupling portion (127, 123) and the second coupling portion (109b, 125; Figure 6; Para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a vibration damping assembly as taught by Oki into the tool of Wolperding. By modifying Wolperding in this manner, the vibration transmission to the handle can be efficiently reduced as taught by Oki (Para. 0010).
Claims 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791), and, alternatively in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Hessenberger (US PGPUB 2014/0124231-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claims 16, 17 and 21, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the fan (46) mounted between the rotor bearings and between the rotor (42) and the first rotor bearing (i.e. the bottom bearing in this instance) but does not disclose a bushing affixed to the rotor shaft between the rotor and the first rotor bearing; and a fan supported on the bushing; wherein the bushing includes a balancing portion that extends axially away from the fan and toward the rotor. Further Wolperding, alone or as modified, does not disclose the balancing portion is configured to have material removed and is copper.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Hessenberger which includes another power tool (10; Figure 1) comprising motor (414; Figures 10-12) including a stator, a rotor (34), a rotor shaft (42) and a bushing (430) affixed to the rotor shaft (42), and a fan (74) supported on the bushing (430; Para. 0040) wherein the bushing (430) includes a balancing portion (formed on 430 per Para. 0042) that extends axially away from the fan (74) and toward the rotor (34; note Para 0040 describes bushing being adjacent face 50B of the rotor; note the overmold 222 of Figure 6) and wherein the balancing portion (of 430) is configured to have material removed therefrom (i.e. see 442) to rotatably balance the rotor (34; Para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a copper/brass bushing as taught by Hessenberger into the tool of Wolperding such that the fan is mounted is mounted on the bushing and further the motor can be readily balance the motor to within a predetermined specification as taught by Hessenberger (Para. 0042).
Note with respect to the copper bushing material, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the bushing being only copper. In this instance the brass of Hessenberger would perform in the same manner.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolperding (US PGPUB 2016/0199958), in view of Lutz (US PGPUB 2014/0370791), and, alternatively in further view of Umemura (JP 2013119129A), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Etter (US Patent 6,120,362).
Regarding Claims 31-33, Wolperding, as modified, fails to disclose a trigger assembly including a paddle member rotatably coupled to the handle and configured to activate the motor, wherein the trigger assembly includes a lock-off member rotatably coupled to the paddle member to selectively lock and unlock the paddle member, and the tool further comprising a microswitch coupled to and extending from the handle, the paddle member engaging the microswitch to activate the motor.
Attention is brought to Etter which teaches a power tool (100; Figure 1) which includes a trigger assembly including a paddle member (paddle 126) rotatably coupled to a handle (102) and configured to activate a motor (106), wherein the trigger assembly includes a lock-off member (134) rotatably coupled to the paddle member (126) to selectively lock and unlock the paddle member (126; Col 3, line 64 through Col 4, line 9), and the tool (100) further comprising a microswitch (142) coupled to and extending from the handle (102), the paddle member (126) engaging the microswitch (142) to activate the motor (106; Col 4, lines 33-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a trigger assembly as taught by Etter in the tool of Wolperding. By modifying Wolperding in this manner, activation of the motor can be readily controlled by the user and further with the lock-off member, inadvertent activation can be prevented as taught by Etter (see Col 5, lines 2-10).
Regarding Claim 34, Wolperding, as modified, discloses the rotor shaft is rotatable at a speed above 20,000 rpm (see Para. 0055 as it can be readily implied the “20000 min-1” is referring to rpm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 10 of “REMARKS” that:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that while Wolperding does refers to a “direct” drive, the rotor shaft and spindle are disclosed as separate features while Lutz provides a teaching that the spindle/rotor shaft are integral (one structure) as outlined above (see also Figure 4 for reference). This readily provides certain advantages as outlined above as, in a manner, the integral spindle of Lutz is formed extending through the motor and therefore will receive an even more “direct” transmission of power. Further, as outlined above, the integral teaching results in a simpler construction without a need to connect the rotor shaft and spindle as disclosed by Wolperding, in which connection, a possibility of power loss does exist. Therefore, in conclusion, although both references refer to a “direct” drive in some extent, Lutz presents a teaching of integrating a spindle to act as a rotor shaft as well as the spindle/output shaft which readily presents the advantages as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 2/10/2026