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
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) and subgroup IC
(claim 6) in a reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction requirement, arguing that the differences among subgroups IA-IG do not rise to the level of distinct inventions and that examination of the amended claims would not require materially different searches. However, as explained in the Restriction Requirement, each subgroup includes at least one feature not present in the other subgroups. Although the searches for the various subgroups may overlap to some extent, they do not coincide. A search directed to elected subgroup IC (claim 6) would not be sufficient to encompass the distinct features of nonelected subgroups IA-IB and ID-IG. Furthermore, the text and classification searches necessary to locate the specific features of the elected subgroup would not necessarily identify the distinct features of the nonelected subgroups. Because each subgroup includes at least one distinguishing feature and occupies a separate status in the prior art, each subgroup requires a different field of search. Accordingly, examination of all subgroups in a single application would impose a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner and could adversely affect examination quality in view of the time constraints applicable to examination.
The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
2. Claims 3-5 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to
37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It is noted that the dependency of claims 7-14 has been amended. Claims 7-14 now depend from elected claim 6 (subgroup IC). Accordingly, claims 7-14 will be examined with elected subgroup IC.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that the controller is configured to use “a condition in which calculation values of one or more target electric motor parameters corresponding to the currently adopted target working mode exceed target switching thresholds corresponding to the one or more target electric motor parameters” as the target switching condition. However, it is unclear what is meant by “calculation values” of the target electric motor parameters. The claim does not specify how such calculation values are obtained or how they differ from the detected electric motor parameters. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 7 and 8 further recite that “the electric motor parameters used as the switching conditions of the controller” are the same in different working modes (claim 7) or are different in different working modes (claim 8). However, claim 6 defines the switching condition as a condition in which calculation values of one or more target electric motor parameters exceed corresponding target switching thresholds. Accordingly, it is unclear how the electric motor parameters themselves constitute the switching conditions. The claims do not clearly define whether the electric motor parameters form part of the switching condition, are used to determine satisfaction of the switching condition, or are themselves the switching condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al. (WO 2023/166922 A1), hereinafter Fujimoto. Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto teaches a power tool comprising a functional piece (tip tool 14 held by keyless chuck 15), an operating member for a user to operate to select a currently adopted target working mode, wherein the power tool has at least two working modes, and the currently adopted target working mode is one of the at least two working modes (slide switch 24, forward/reverse switch button 25, and operation panel 31; Figs. 2, 4, and 5), an electric motor for driving the functional piece to operate (motor 12), a power supply device for supplying power to at least the electric motor (battery 11), a drive device connected to the electric motor and the power supply device and used for driving the electric motor to operate (inverter circuit 82 including switching elements Q1-Q6), and a controller connected to the operating member and the drive device (microcomputer 95), used for outputting a control signal to the drive device to control the drive device and configured to determine, according to the currently adopted target working mode, a target switching condition for switching a control manner of the electric motor in the currently adopted target working mode, wherein switching conditions for switching the control manner of the electric motor in different working modes are different (tightening mode: S16-S21; loosening mode: S16a-S17), and, in a case where the target switching condition is satisfied, switch the control manner of the electric motor from a first target control manner to a second target control manner in the currently adopted target working mode (S17 and S25). See Figs. 1-8 in Fujimoto.
Fujimoto discloses that the microcomputer 95 controls the motor differently depending on whether the tool is operating in the tightening mode or the loosening mode. In the tightening mode, the controller monitors motor current and motor rotational speed conditions and changes the motor control when the predetermined switching condition is satisfied. In the loosening mode, the controller monitors a different switching condition based on motor rotational speed before changing the motor control. Thus, Fujimoto teaches different switching conditions for different working modes and switching from one motor control manner to another within each working mode.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that
the controller (microcomputer 95) is configured, in a case where the currently adopted target working mode is a first working mode (tightening mode), and a first switching condition is satisfied (motor current reaching threshold Z or motor rotational speed drop reaching threshold Y, S18-S19), to switch the control manner of the electric motor from a first control manner (fixed duty ratio d1 control followed by ramping) to a second control manner (brake control, stopping, and restart control, S25) (Figs. 4 and 6); and, in a case where the currently adopted target working mode is a second working mode (loosening mode), and a second switching condition is satisfied (motor rotational speed reaching threshold X3, S16a), to switch the control manner of the electric motor from a third control manner (fixed duty ratio d3 control) to a fourth control manner (increased duty ratio d2 control, S17) (Fig. 5).
Fujimoto expressly teaches separate control strategies for tightening and loosening modes. Each mode has its own switching condition and corresponding change in motor control, thereby meeting the claimed first and second working mode limitations.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including a parameter detection device connected to the electric motor and the controller (rotor position detection circuit 85, current detection circuit 91, battery voltage detection circuit 89, temperature detection circuit 86, and battery temperature detection circuit 93) and configured to detect a plurality of electric motor parameters and output the plurality of electric motor parameters to the controller (microcomputer 95), wherein the controller is configured to use a condition in which one or more target electric motor parameters exceed corresponding switching thresholds as the target switching condition (motor current threshold Z, motor rotational speed thresholds X1, X2, X3, and motor rotational speed drop threshold Y; S16-S21 and S16a-S17). Fujimoto teaches that the controller receives motor operating parameters from multiple detection circuits and compares those parameters with predetermined thresholds to determine when to switch the motor control strategy, thereby satisfying the claimed parameter detection and threshold determination limitations.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that the electric motor parameters used as the switching conditions of the controller in different working modes are different (in the tightening mode, the controller uses motor current and motor rotational speed drop as switching conditions, S18-S19; in the loosening mode, the controller uses motor rotational speed reaching threshold X3 as the switching condition, S16a-S17). Fujimoto expressly discloses that different motor parameters are relied upon for switching motor control in the tightening mode and the loosening mode, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that
the electric motor parameters comprise one or more of an electric motor rotational speed (rotor position detection circuit 85), a control signal duty cycle (duty ratios d1, d2, and d3), a bus current and/or phase current (current detection circuit 91), a MOS temperature (temperature detection circuit 86), a battery pack temperature (battery temperature detection circuit 93), and a battery pack voltage (battery voltage detection circuit 89). Because claim 9 requires the electric motor parameters to comprise one or more of the recited parameters, Fujimoto’s disclosure of motor rotational speed, duty cycle, current, MOS temperature, battery temperature, and battery voltage satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that the at least two working modes of the power tool comprise a tightening mode and a loosening mode (forward/reverse switch button 25 and microcomputer 95; Fig. 4, Fig. 5). Claim 12 recites that the at least two working modes comprise any pair of the listed modes, including a tightening mode and a loosening mode. Fujimoto expressly discloses tightening and loosening modes, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that
the power tool is an electric drill (work machine 1 is expressly disclosed as a driver drill including motor 12, tip tool 14, planetary gear mechanism 16, and keyless chuck 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.64
8. Claims 7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Yajurvedi et al. (11374520 B2), hereinafter Yajurvedi. Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Fujimoto teaches a power tool comprising an electric motor for driving a functional tool element (motor 12 driving tip tool 14 via gear mechanism 16), a power supply device for supplying power to the motor (battery 11 or AC power via rectifier circuit 220 and DC bus line 221), a drive device connected to the electric motor and power supply device for driving the electric motor (power switch circuit 226 including inverter bridge and FETs controlled by controller 95/230), and a controller connected to an operating member and the drive device for outputting control signals to control motor operation (microcomputer 95/ controller 230 receiving trigger input and controlling commutation via gate driver 232 and drive signals Da, Db, Dc). Fujimoto further teaches controlling motor operation based on operating conditions such as torque estimation, motor current, and switching between operating states including motor activation, torque reduction, and motor stop (S18-S25, current sensing via shunt resistors RU, RV or FET resistance-based sensing, and motor shutdown logic).
Fujimoto does not expressly disclose determining, for different working modes of the power tool, different switching thresholds for motor control manner switching based on mode-dependent conditions. Yajurvedi teaches a brushless motor control system in which a controller 230 performs sensorless field-oriented control (FOC) using measured phase currents IU, IV, IW and estimates rotor position using current-based and back-EMF-based calculations (Figs. 4-6, SMO/HFI/FOC control schemes), thereby enabling mode-dependent and operating-condition-dependent motor control strategies with different control thresholds for stable operation across speed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujimoto’s controller to incorporate Yajurvedi’s sensorless FOC-based motor control and current-based rotor estimation in order to improve motor efficiency, torque accuracy, and stability during different operating conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including a brushless motor (motor 12), a power supply device (battery 11 / AC rectifier 220), a drive device for energizing the motor (power switch circuit 226 with inverter FET bridge), and a controller for controlling motor commutation and operation based on detected operating conditions (microcomputer 95 / controller 230, S18-S25, torque/current-based control and motor stop logic).
Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose that the electric motor is controlled using field-oriented control (FOC), six-step commutation alternatives, or sine-transform control as selectable control manners. Yajurvedi teaches a brushless motor control system in which controller 230 performs field-oriented control (FOC), space vector PWM (SVPWM), and sensorless rotor position estimation using phase currents IU, IV, IW and current feedback loops (Figs. 4-6; gate driver 232; PWM control of inverter switches; SVPWM generation). It would have been obvious to modify Fujimoto’s brushless motor control system to use the FOC and SVPWM-based control techniques of Yajurvedi in order to improve torque smoothness, reduce vibration, and enhance efficiency of motor operation, particularly under variable load conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that the power tool comprising at least two working modes implemented through operating conditions such as different torque thresholds and motor stop conditions during fastening or working operations (microcomputer 95 control logic, S18-S25, torque detection and completion condition logic), wherein the motor is controlled based on detected load/torque conditions and operation state.
Fujimoto does not expressly disclose distinct working modes such as wood mode and metal mode in which motor control switching conditions differ depending on the working material or application type. Yajurvedi teaches a sensorless brushless motor control system in which controller 230 adjusts motor operation using current-based feedback and rotor position estimation, allowing adaptive control of motor behavior under different operating conditions including varying load and speed regimes (FOC control, phase current sensing IU/IV/IW, and dynamic commutation adjustment using SVPWM). It would have been obvious to modify Fujimoto’s power tool to include application-dependent working modes (such as wood and metal working modes) with different motor control parameters in view of Yajurvedi because adaptive current-based motor control is a known technique for optimizing brushless motor performance under different load conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Fujimoto teaches everything noted above including that the power tool having a brushless motor (motor 12), a controller configured to control motor operation based on detected operating conditions, and a drive circuit that regulates motor speed and torque by controlling inverter switching elements (microcomputer 95/controller 230, power switch circuit 226, S18-S25). Fujimoto further teaches motor control that varies motor operation based on load conditions and operating state transitions, including stopping the motor when a torque condition is satisfied.
Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose that the electric motor operates at different rotational speeds and/or torques depending on different working modes defined by application type. Yajurvedi teaches a brushless motor control system in which motor speed and torque are dynamically controlled using field-oriented control (FOC), phase current measurement IU, IV, IW, and sensorless rotor estimation, allowing precise adjustment of torque and speed across operating conditions (controller 230, SVPWM generation, Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to modify Fujimoto’s motor control system to vary motor rotational speed and torque based on operating mode parameters using Yajurvedi’s FOC and current-based control techniques in order to improve controllability, efficiency, and performance of the brushless motor under different load conditions.
9. Claims 1-2 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (10,391,599), hereinafter Yoshida, in view of Yajurvedi. Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a power tool comprising a functional piece, operating member selecting a working mode, motor (16), power supply device (220/224), drive device (226/232), and a controller (230) configured to determine, based on a currently adopted working mode, a target switching condition for switching a control manner of the motor, wherein different working modes have different switching conditions, and upon satisfaction of the condition, switching from a first control manner to a second control manner. Yoshida further discloses a power tool (10) including a functional output structure (gearset 26, output shaft 27), an electric motor (16), a power supply system including rectifier circuit (220) and DC bus capacitor (224), and a drive device including power switch circuit (226) and gate driver (232), wherein controller (230) controls motor (16) using multiple control manners including trapezoidal commutation, field-oriented control (FOC), and sinusoidal/SVPWM control depending on operating conditions such as load and speed (see Fig. 4 in Yoshida and associated description of FOC/SVPWM control). Yoshida further teaches that controller (230) dynamically adjusts control strategy based on operating state and sensed parameters such as phase currents IU/IV/IW and back-EMF estimation.
However, Yoshida does not explicitly disclose that a user-selectable operating mode defines distinct switching conditions per mode. Yajurvedi discloses a power tool controller (230) with sensorless rotor position estimator (332) and speed estimator (334) that selects between multiple control regimes (open-loop startup, back-EMF based control, and closed-loop FOC) based on operating state thresholds such as speed and signal validity conditions, wherein switching conditions differ depending on control region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida’s control mechanism with Yajurvedi’s controller, which associates different control switching conditions with different operating modes, in order to improve the motor control stability and sensorless accuracy by defining distinct state-dependent switching criteria for transitioning between control manners (e.g., startup to FOC).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the multiple control manners executed by controller (230), including trapezoidal commutation, FOC, and sinusoidal SVPWM control applied to motor (16), with transitions based on operating conditions such as speed and load detected via phase current sensing and motor feedback. Yoshida, however, does not explicitly assign distinct switching conditions per discrete working mode. Yajurvedi teaches controller (230) operating with different control regimes including open-loop startup, sensorless back-EMF commutation using attenuator (240) and LPF (242), and closed-loop FOC control, where switching thresholds differ depending on motor state and estimated rotor speed, and where control transitions are condition-specific (e.g., startup-to-FOC transition vs low-speed sensorless estimation transition). It would have been obvious to combine Yoshida and Yajurvedi such that Yoshida’s controller implements mode-dependent switching conditions for different control transitions,as taught by Yajurvedi, in order to ensure stable commutation and provide a predictable variation of the dual-mode switching structure.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the detection of motor phase currents (IU, IV, IW) using shunt resistors or FET resistance sensing, bus voltage via capacitor (224), and back-EMF estimation processed by controller (230), all of which are used for motor control and protection. Yoshida further teaches that controller (230) uses these parameters to regulate
commutation and adjust PWM duty cycles. Yajurvedi also similarly discloses sensorless detection of motor parameters including phase currents, back-EMF signals via attenuator (240) and LPF (242), rotor position (332), and speed (334), and explicitly teaches threshold-based switching between control modes based on estimated motor parameters such as speed and signal validity. It would have been obvious to modify Yoshida in view of Yajurvedi to explicitly use parameter threshold-based switching per working mode, since both references rely on real-time motor parameter estimation for control transitions, and Yajurvedi teaches that such thresholds govern reliable switching between control states.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the reuse of identical sensed parameters such as phase currents IU/IV/IW, bus voltage (224), and derived speed/back-EMF signals across multiple control strategies (FOC, SVPWM, trapezoidal). Yajurvedi also similarly reuses phase current signals and back-EMF-based signals across multiple control regimes including startup, low-speed, and closed-loop operation, while applying different decision thresholds depending on operating state (e.g., rotor speed threshold for transition to FOC via position estimator 332). It would have been obvious to configure Yoshida’s controller to apply different switching thresholds to the same sensed parameters depending on operating mode, because Yajurvedi teaches that using identical sensor signals with different state-dependent thresholds improves robustness of sensorless commutation transitions.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the multiple motor parameters including current (IU, IV, IW), voltage (224), and back-EMF-based signals used selectively depending on control strategy. Yajurvedi discloses distinct parameter sets used depending on operating region, including phase current-based sensing for FOC and back-EMF-based sensing via attenuator (240)/LPF (242) for sensorless commutation at low speed. It would have been obvious to combine Yoshida with Yajurvedi such that different working modes rely on different motor parameters, because Yajurvedi explicitly teaches switching between current-based and voltage/back-EMF-based estimation depending on operating conditions to improve control accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the phase currents (IU, IV, IW), PWM duty cycle control via SVPWM, and DC bus voltage (224). Yajurvedi teaches rotor speed estimation (334), phase currents, and voltage-based back-EMF sensing through attenuator (240) and LPF (242). Although neither reference explicitly discloses all listed thermal and demagnetization parameters, both collectively teach a multi-parameter motor monitoring system used for control and protection. It would have been obvious to expand the sensed parameter set to include additional known motor protection parameters such as temperature and battery voltage, as such parameters are conventionally used in power tool motor controllers to prevent overcurrent and overheating conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the brushless motor (16) control using trapezoidal six-step commutation, field-oriented control (FOC), and sinusoidal SVPWM control. Yajurvedi also discloses sensorless BLDC control using FOC and back-EMF-based commutation techniques supporting smooth sinusoidal control. It would have been obvious to combine Yoshida and Yajurvedi because both explicitly teach interchangeable BLDC control schemes and sensorless commutation strategies.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the power tool operation across different load conditions such as drilling, cutting, and grinding using motor (16) under varying torque and speed conditions controlled by controller (230). Yajurvedi similarly discloses adaptive motor control based on operating conditions and load response. It would have been obvious to define wood and metal modes as application-specific labels for known load-dependent operating states, because such categorization is a routine design choice in power tool control systems.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including application of power tool (10) to drilling, screw driving, and saw operations via interchangeable tool heads and varying torque control. Yajurvedi discloses torque and speed regulation responsive to load and user input (trigger control) via FOC and sensorless commutation. It would have been obvious to map known operating profiles into discrete working modes such as screw or drilling modes, because such mappings are standard in configurable power tools.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including the variable speed and torque control of motor (16) via SVPWM and FOC depending on load and operating conditions. Yajurvedi also teaches torque control via current regulation and speed control via rotor position estimation (332) and speed estimator (334).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the power tool is a reciprocating saw, an electric drill, an electric wrench, a jigsaw, or a circular saw (Fig. 1-7 in Yoshida). It should be also noted that Yajurvedi similarly discloses implementation in handheld power tools such as drills and impact drivers.
10. Claims 1-2 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Hecht (2018/0133879 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a power tool, comprising: a functional piece (a circular saw blade 8 driven by brushless motor 9); an operating member for a user to operate to select a currently adopted target working mode (the mode change switch 16 and main trigger switch 18 used for selecting operating states); wherein the power tool has at least two working modes, and the currently adopted target working mode is one of the at least two working modes (defined by a normal mode and economy mode; col. 4, liens 1-45 and col. 7, lines 17-29); an electric motor 9 for driving the functional piece to operate; a power supply device for supplying power 20 to at least the electric motor; a drive device (defined by switching devices 23a and switching board 23) connected to the electric motor and the power supply device and used for driving the electric motor to operate; and a controller 27 connected to the operating member and drive device and configured to output control signals. See Figs. 1-15 in Yoshida.
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the controller being configured to determine, according to the currently adopted target working mode, a mode-specific target switching condition for switching a control manner of the electric motor, nor switching between different control manners per mode, because Yoshida only discloses switching between modes based on load current threshold and elapsed time. However, Hecht teaches a hand-held power tool mode-setting unit (160) for selecting multiple operating modes such as screwing, drilling, and impact drilling (paragraphs [0030]-[0034]), wherein different modes correspond to different motor behavior including torque and speed control adjustments via controller interaction (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida’s controller-based mode switching system in view of Hecht’s teaching of multiple operating modes with distinct operational motor control behavior, so that Yoshida’s controller implements mode-specific switching conditions and mode-dependent motor control manners in order to improve adaptability of motor operation across different working tasks and enhance operational efficiency and stability.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches that the controller is configured to, in a case where the currently adopted target working mode is a first working mode and a first switching condition corresponding to the first working mode is satisfied, switch the control manner of the electric motor from a first control manner to a second control manner; and in a case where the currently adopted target working mode is a second working mode and a second switching condition corresponding to the second working mode is satisfied, switch the control manner of the electric motor from a third control manner to a fourth control manner (Yoshida discloses mode switching logic between normal mode and economy mode using load current and time thresholds (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41), but does not disclose distinct control manners per mode or multiple control transitions per mode); Hecht teaches multiple operating modes (screwing, drilling, impact drilling) where motor control behavior differs depending on selected mode and operational condition (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida’s mode switching controller in view of Hecht’s disclosure so that each working mode includes its own switching condition and corresponding control manner transitions, in order to provide more refined motor control, improved tool adaptability, and optimized performance under different working conditions.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including a parameter detection device connected to the electric motor and controller and configured to detect electric motor parameters and output them to the controller (Yoshida discloses load current monitoring and time-based conditions used by control unit 27 (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41), which corresponds to motor parameter monitoring); wherein the controller is configured to use a condition in which calculation values of target motor parameters exceed thresholds as a switching condition (Yoshida discloses load current threshold and time threshold conditions for switching. However Yoshida does not disclose a generalized multi-parameter detection device nor different parameter sets per mode. Hecht teaches that motor operating behavior is adjusted based on operating mode selection in a hand-held power tool with a mode-setting unit (160; paragraphs [0033]-[0036]), implying mode-dependent control logic. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida’s threshold-based control using Hecht’s mode-setting architecture so that multiple detected motor parameters are used as switching criteria in a mode-dependent manner to improve control precision and adaptability.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that the same electric motor parameters are used in different working modes but switching thresholds differ (Yoshida discloses load current and time thresholds used for switching control; col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41), but does not explicitly teach mode-dependent threshold variation); Hecht teaches different operating modes (screwing, drilling, impact drilling) with differing operational requirements (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida so that identical motor parameters are used across modes while thresholds vary per mode, in order to tailor sensitivity of control response to different operating conditions and improve operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including that different electric motor parameters are used as switching conditions in different working modes (Yoshida discloses load current and time-based parameters (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41) but does not disclose mode-specific parameter selection); Hecht discloses multiple operating modes with different functional requirements (160; paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida using Hecht so that different parameters (e.g., current in one mode, speed in another) are used per mode to improve adaptability and control accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the electric motor parameters comprise motor rotational speed, duty cycle, current, temperature, and battery voltage (Yoshida discloses load current and control timing (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41), but does not explicitly disclose full parameter set); Hecht discloses electronic control of motor operation across different operating modes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to extend Yoshida’s monitored parameters using Hecht’s electronically controlled multi-mode architecture to include additional standard motor control parameters to improve control robustness.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the electric motor is a brushless motor and control manners include different commutation control methods (Yoshida discloses brushless motor 9 controlled via switching devices 23a). Hecht discloses electronically controlled motor operation in multiple operating modes (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply different brushless motor control strategies depending on mode to improve efficiency and torque performance.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the working modes comprise wood mode and metal mode (Yoshida discloses normal and economy modes (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41) but not material-specific modes). Hecht discloses different operating modes such as drilling and screwing (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida using Hecht to map working modes to material-specific modes to optimize tool performance for different materials.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the working modes comprise screw mode and drilling modes or gear-based modes (Yoshida discloses normal/economy modes (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-41) but not functional drilling/screwing classification). Hecht discloses screwing, drilling, and impact drilling modes (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Hecht’s functional mode structure into Yoshida to provide application-specific working modes for improved usability.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the motor has different rotational speeds and/or torques in different working modes (Yoshida discloses economy mode reducing power and normal mode full power (col. 6, lines 30-67 and col. 7, lines 1-65). Hecht discloses mode-dependent torque and speed behavior (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida using Hecht so that each working mode corresponds to distinct torque and speed outputs to optimize performance and energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida teaches everything noted above including
that the power tool is a reciprocating saw, electric drill, wrench, jigsaw, or circular saw (Yoshida explicitly discloses circular saw; col. 3, lines 35-67). Hecht also discloses hand-held power tools including drilling and screwing tools.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Obermann et al. (11,833,655 B2), Phillips et al. (9,908,182 B2), Yaun et al. (2024/0256022), and Lu et al. (2024/0128897 A1) teach a power tool.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights