DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 02/17/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 was filed after the filing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 8 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12051930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations in the claims of the application are encompassed in the claims of the patent and are read to be the same invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Obermann et al. US 20210091687 A1 (Hereinafter “Obermann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Obermann teaches a power tool (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, 102) including a battery receiving portion (Fig. 1, 114) configured to receive a removeable power tool battery pack (Fig. 3A, 122) and a motor housing (Fig. 1, 106);
a brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor (Fig. 2, 126) disposed within the motor housing, the motor including a stator and a rotor;
a power switch circuit (Fig. 2, 124) disposed between the battery receiving portion and the motor; and
a controller (Fig. 2, 130) configured to control switching operation of the power switch circuit to regulate a supply of power from the battery pack to the motor, wherein at tool start-up, the controller is configured to detect an initial position of the rotor in a sensorless manner by applying a plurality of voltage pulses to the motor, measuring a corresponding plurality of motor phase current values, and identifying a rotor sector position corresponding based on the plurality of motor phase current values ([0025] & [0027]),
the controller being further configured to identify a characteristic of the battery pack as a function of the plurality of motor phase current values ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Obermann teaches the power tool of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to apply a high magnitude voltage pulse to a sector of rotor orientation corresponding to the initial position of the rotor relative to the stator ([0027], back emf) and measure a corresponding high- magnitude current value ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, Obermann teaches the power tool of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to monitor a bus voltage drop on a bus line provided between the battery receiving portion and the power switch circuit, and identify the characteristic of the battery pack including at least one of an impedance or a capacity of the battery pack as a function of the high- magnitude current value and the bus voltage drop ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 8, Obermann teaches a power tool (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, 102) including a battery receiving portion (Fig. 1, 114) configured to receive a removeable power tool battery pack (Fig. 3A, 122) and a motor housing (Fig. 1, 106);
a brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor (Fig. 3A, 126) disposed within the motor housing, the motor including a stator and a rotor;
a power switch circuit (Fig. 3A, 124) disposed between the battery receiving portion and the motor;
a bus line (Fig. 3A, 156) provided between the battery receiving portion and the power switch circuit; and
a controller (Fig. 2, 130) configured to control switching operation of the power switch circuit to regulate a supply of power from the battery pack to the motor, wherein the controller is configured to detect an initial position of the rotor in a sensorless manner by applying a plurality of voltage pulses to the motor, measuring a corresponding plurality of motor phase current values, and identifying a rotor sector position corresponding based on the plurality of motor phase current values ([0025] & [0027]),
the controller being further configured to apply a high magnitude voltage pulse to a sector of rotor orientation corresponding to the initial position of the rotor relative to the stator ([0025]), measure a corresponding high-magnitude current value, and identify a characteristic of the battery pack as a function of the high-magnitude current value ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 9, Obermann teaches the power tool of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to monitor a bus voltage drop on the bus line, and identify the characteristic of the battery pack including at least one of an impedance or a capacity of the battery pack as a function of the high-magnitude current value and the bus voltage drop ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 10, Obermann teaches the power tool of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to identify characteristic of the battery pack including at least one of an impedance or a capacity of the battery pack as a function of the plurality of phase current values ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 11, Obermann teaches the power tool of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to measure a bus voltage of the bus line and calculate a battery identifier as a function of the high- magnitude current value, the plurality of phase current values, and the bus voltage ([0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 12-13 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argued that Westerby did not teach using motor current for identification. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection 35 USC § 102 is made in view of Oberman, which uses motor current to identify battery impedance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORTEZ M COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CORTEZ M COOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights