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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/11/2026.
Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office Action hence the respective rejections/objections have been withdrawn, except for those rejections/objections if still maintained or newly added in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims under 35 U.S.C § 103, the arguments have been fully considered.
Regarding the claims, Applicant argued in substance that reference Barezzani does not have temperature sensor to sense the temperature of the hydraulic oil therefore the motor can not be controlled by the sense temperature of the hydraulic oil.
As recited in the previous Office action, although Barezzani does not teach a temperature sensor to sense the sense the temperature of the hydraulic oil, reference Aoki teaches to use a temperature sensor to sense a temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then control the operation of the motor based on the sensed temperature of the hydraulic oil. Since Barezzani teaches to detect a state of the hydraulic oil and then change the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated signal/state, and since Aoki teaches to use a temperature sensor to detect/calculate a state/temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then changes the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated state/temperature, Aoki’s teaching can be combined into Barezzani to use a temperature sensor to detect/calculate a temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then changes the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated temperature.
Therefore, Barezzani combined with Aoki teach the limitations of the modified claim 1. Claims 2-6 are also rejected based on new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani (US 20170252912 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Barezzani”) in view of Aoki (US 20030171187 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Aoki”).
Regarding claim 1, Barezzani teaches:
An electric tool (tool 1 in FIG.s 1 and 2 and [0037]) comprising:
a main body (housing 3 in FIG. 1 and [0038]) in which a cylinder part having a piston (piston 20 in FIG. 2 and [0043, 0044]), an oil tank (oil tank 24 in FIG.s 1 and 2, and [0071]), a hydraulic pump (pump 7 in FIG.s 1 and 2, and [0041, 0071]) for feeding a hydraulic oil inside the oil tank to the cylinder part, an electric motor (motor 6 in FIG.s 1 and 2, and [0040, 0041]) for driving the hydraulic pump, and a control circuit (control circuit 28 in FIG. 1 and [0043]) are disposed;
a tool head (head 11 in FIG.s 1 and 2 and [0044]) operated by the piston in a state of being connected to the main body;
a battery (battery 5 in FIG. 1 and [0040, 0112]) that supplies power to the electric motor; and
a sensor ([0104]) that detects a state of the hydraulic oil,
wherein the control circuit drives and controls the electric motor, based on a detection signal from the sensor ([0110, 0111]).
Barezzani teach(es) all the limitations, but does not teach the control circuit calculates a temperature of the hydraulic oil, based on the detection signal, and lowers a rotation speed of the electric motor from a setting value when the calculated temperature of the hydraulic oil being lower than a reference value.
However, Aoki teaches in an analogous art:
based on detection signal, and lowers a rotation speed of the electric motor from a setting value when the calculated temperature of the hydraulic oil is lower than a reference value ([0013]: “In contrast, when the temperature of the operation oil is relatively low, the revolution rate of the motor-driven oil pump is set to be low as it is determined that decrease in the discharge pressure of the motor-driven oil pump is small”. This teaches to use a temperature sensor to detect/calculate a temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then changes the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated temperature).
Since Barezzani teaches to detect a state of the hydraulic oil and then change the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated signal/state, and since Aoki teaches to use a temperature sensor to detect/calculate a state/temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then changes the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated state/temperature, Aoki’s teaching can be combined into Barezzani to use a temperature sensor to detect/calculate a temperature of the hydraulic oil, and then changes the operation of the motor based on the detected/calculated temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani based on the teaching of Aoki, to make the electric tool wherein the control circuit calculates a temperature of the hydraulic oil, based on the detection signal, and lowers a rotation speed of the electric motor from a setting value when the calculated temperature of the hydraulic oil being lower than a reference value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “As a result, accuracy of the oil pressure provided by the operation of the motor-driven oil pump can be improved, and the oil pressure provided by the oil pressure providing section can be maintained to be an appropriate value while improving the efficiency of the motor-driven oil pump, as Aoki teaches in [0014].
Regarding claim 2, Barezzani-Aoki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
Aoki further teaches:
the sensor is any one or more of a temperature sensor ([0042]: “an oil temperature sensor 42 for measuring the temperature of the operation oil (oil temperature) flowing through the oil lines 18b”), a viscosity sensor, a flow sensor, or a pressure sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Barezzani based on the teaching of Aoki, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is any one or more of a temperature sensor, a viscosity sensor, a flow sensor, or a pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “As a result, accuracy of the oil pressure provided by the operation of the motor-driven oil pump can be improved, and the oil pressure provided by the oil pressure providing section can be maintained to be an appropriate value while improving the efficiency of the motor-driven oil pump, as Aoki teaches in [0014].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani in view of Aoki, and in further view of Ishijima (US 20230246582 A1, prior art of reocrd, hereinafter as “Ishijima”).
Regarding claim 3, Barezzani-Aoki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the sensor is disposed inside the oil tank.
However, Ishijima teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is disposed inside the oil tank (FIG. 1 and [0029]: “The temperature sensor 4 measures the temperature of the oil stored in the oil tank 3”. The temperature sensor 4 is disposed inside oil tank 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki based on the teaching of Ishijima, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is disposed inside the oil tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to accommodate the viscosity change due to temperature change of the oil to be able to “supply a required flow rate while reducing electric power consumption by controlling the rotational speed of the motor”, as Ishijima suggests in [0003].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani in view of Aoki and Ishijima, and in further view of Gates (US 20090272353 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Gates”).
Regarding claim 4, Barezzani-Aoki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the oil tank.
However, Ishijima teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is measure temperature of oil in the oil tank (FIG. 1 and [0029]: “The temperature sensor 4 measures the temperature of the oil stored in the oil tank 3”. The temperature sensor 4 is disposed inside oil tank 3 to measure oil temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki based on the teaching of Ishijima, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is disposed to measure oil temperature in the oil tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to accommodate the viscosity change due to temperature change of the oil to be able to “supply a required flow rate while reducing electric power consumption by controlling the rotational speed of the motor”, as Ishijima suggests in [0003].
Barezzani-Aoki-Ishijima teach all the limitations except that the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the oil tank.
However, Gates teaches in an analogous art:
the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the oil tank (FIG. 1 and [0032]: sensor 126 is in contact with an outer side of the oil tank 14, to measure the oil temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki-Ishijima based on the teaching of Gates, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the oil tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help measure the temperature of the oil.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani in view of Aoki and MATSUDA (US 20200183431 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “MATSUDA”), and in further view of IWASE (US 20180222469 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “IWASE”).
Regarding claim 5, Barezzani-Aoki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the cylinder part.
However, MATSUDA teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is to measure oil temperature ([0046]: “An IDG2 is provided with an oil temperature sensor 35 (oil temperature acquisition unit) that detects the temperature of the hydraulic oil in the hydraulic actuator 20. The oil temperature sensor 35 may be arranged anywhere as long as it can detect the temperature of the oil flowing through the hydraulic circuit of the hydraulic actuator 20, …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki based on the teaching of MATSUDA, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is to measure the hydraulic oil temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “as the oil temperature decreases, the oil viscosity increases” so measure the oil temperature can help optimized the oil flow rate, as MATSUDA suggests in [0062].
Barezzani-Aoki-MATSUDA teach the oil temperature sensor may “be arranged anywhere”, but do not explicitly teach the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the cylinder part.
However, IWASE teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is in contact with an outer side of the cylinder part (FIG. 1 and [0052]: “an oil temperature sensor 64 for detecting the temperature of the lubricating oil”).
Since MATSUDA teaches the oil sensor may by arrange anywhere as long as it can detect the temperature of the oil, and since IWASE teaches a temperature sensor in contact with an outer side of cylinder block to measure oil temperature inside the cylinder block, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki-MATSUDA based on the teaching of IWASE, to make the electric wherein the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the cylinder part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable measuring the hydraulic oil temperature.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barezzani in view of Aoki and MATSUDA, and in further view of Ikeda (US 20190094200 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Ikeda”).
Regarding claim 6, Barezzani-Aoki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the sensor is in contact with an outer side of the cylinder part.
However, MATSUDA teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is to measure oil temperature ([0046]: “An IDG2 is provided with an oil temperature sensor 35 (oil temperature acquisition unit) that detects the temperature of the hydraulic oil in the hydraulic actuator 20. The oil temperature sensor 35 may be arranged anywhere as long as it can detect the temperature of the oil flowing through the hydraulic circuit of the hydraulic actuator 20, …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki based on the teaching of MATSUDA, to make the electric tool wherein the sensor is to measure the hydraulic oil temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “as the oil temperature decreases, the oil viscosity increases” so measure the oil temperature can help optimized the oil flow rate, as MATSUDA suggests in [0062].
Barezzani-Aoki-MATSUDA teach the oil temperature sensor may “be arranged anywhere”, but they do not explicitly teach sensor is disposed inside the cylinder part.
However, Ikeda teaches in an analogous art:
sensor is disposed inside the cylinder part (FIG. 1 and [0029]: “The temperature sensor 8 measures an oil temperature inside the cylinder 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barezzani-Aoki-MATSUDA based on the teaching of Ikeda, to make the electric wherein the sensor is disposed inside the cylinder part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable measuring the hydraulic oil temperature.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights