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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 that Kaizo fails to disclose “reduce, in response to the power value reaching a threshold” and further argues on page 7 that the condition Kaizo describes in conjunction with reducing power to the motor is therefore prompted by the trigger switch, whether the trigger is released, held, or reduced, rather than by the power value reaching the value C.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Kaizo’s paragraph 0034 also shows omission of steps S16 and S17. With this omission, the output voltage is decreased with an activation of step S14. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 11, 2, 12, 3, 13, 4, 14, 5, 15, 6, 16, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAIZO et al. US 2014/0015465 A1.
Regarding claim 1, KAIZO et al. disclose
A power tool (fig. 1, item 10) comprising: an electric motor (item 13); an interface (item 11) configured to receive a battery pack (item 12); and an electronic controller (item 21) configured to: monitor a current value (via item 42) between the battery pack and the electric motor, monitor a voltage value (via item 30) between the battery pack and the electric motor (see fig. 1), compute a power value (via item 21b) based on the current value and the voltage value, and reduce, in response to the power value reaching a threshold (C), an input power of the electric motor [0016, 0017, 0020, 0023, 0030-0034] (Emphasis added “if steps S16 and S17 were to be omitted, such a sudden change in the pulled amount of the trigger switch 41 would decrease the battery voltage of the battery pack 12 and decrease the output power (output voltage-current) of the voltage increasing circuit”. It should be noted that step S14 still checks for a predetermined value before the output power is decreased which is clearly shown in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, KAIZO et al. disclose
A method of controlling an electric motor of a power tool, the method comprising: monitoring a current value between a battery pack and the electric motor; monitoring a voltage value between the battery pack and the electric motor; computing a power value based on the current value and the voltage value; and reducing, in response to the power value reaching a threshold, an input power of the electric motor (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein the current value is at least one of an inverter current value, a motor phase current value, and a battery current value [0023].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein the voltage value is at least one of an inverter voltage value, a motor phase voltage value, and a battery voltage value [0021, 0028].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein the electronic controller is configured to compute the power value based on the current value, the voltage value, and a duty cycle of the electric motor [0032].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein the current value is a current value measured during an ON portion of a pulse width modulation signal [0032] (The current is generated during positive potion of the PWM signal because OFF portion does not generate any current).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein the power value is a time-averaged power value [0030] (The PWM is ON for a certain period of time. The power is inherently computed as an averaged value).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, KAIZO et al. disclose
, wherein, to reduce the input power of the electric motor, the electronic controller is configured to reduce a requested pulse-width-modulation (“PWM”) value of the electric motor [0028, 0030, 0032].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAIZO.
Regarding claim 10, KAIZO does not disclose, wherein the threshold is a first threshold, and wherein the electronic controller is configured to no longer reduce the input power of the electric motor in response to the power value falling below a second threshold, the second threshold lower than the first threshold. However, KAIZO discloses reducing the input power once the power exceeds the first threshold. In other words, the power is not reduced for the value below the first threshold which could be any value lower than the first threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to no longer reduce the input power of the electric motor in response to the power value falling below a second threshold because the power is still exceeding the first threshold.
Regarding claim 19, KAIZO does not disclose, wherein: the threshold is a first threshold; and the method further comprising: stopping the reducing of the input power of the electric motor in response to the power value falling below a second threshold, the second threshold lower than the first threshold but obvious over KAIZO (see claim 10 rejection for detail).
Claims 7, 17 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAIZO in a view of WANG CN 105955198B.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, KAIZO does not disclose but WANG discloses wherein, to compute the power value, the electronic controller is configured to provide the time-averaged power value to a filter.
PNG
media_image1.png
159
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the time-averaged power to a filter as disclosed by WANG in KAIZO’s teachings to provide accurate energy consumption data as step energy consumption monitoring of the tool (see WANG’s abstract section).
Regarding claim 8, KAIZO and WANG does not disclose, wherein the filter is an infinite-impulse-response filter. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make WANG’s filter IIR filter to achieve smoother output because it averages over all past samples.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights