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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 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.
Claims 1 and 12-13 recite the limitation "the rotation of the motor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term/phrase “when resuming of the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit” in claim 1 is unclear since a rotation of the motor has not been prior recited. As claimed, rotation has not occurred and the phrase “when resuming of the rotation of the motor” is giving life to a feature that has not been positively claimed. Also, is the motor always rotating or is the second control a stopped motor? The term “resuming” implies rotation has occurred and then rotation has stopped? Examiner suggest positively reciting that the motor rotates, when the motor rotates, and when the motor stops rotating.
Since claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112; it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions. (In re Steele 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOSOKAWA et al. (US 20150349695 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HOSOKAWA et al. (US 20150349695 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20220345057 A1) and further in view of DAI et al. (US 20220014128 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, HOSOKAWA et al. discloses a work machine (fig. 1 [0001, 0041]) with a control unit (control unit 7 – triac 9/pick-up coil 11) configured to control a motor (2); an operating unit (switch 6), configured to instruct the control unit to drive/halt the motor [0023-0024]; and a rotation detection unit (control unit 7/pick-up coil 11 [0032-0035]), detecting rotation of the motor, wherein the control unit is configured to
execute a first control (D1) for continuously driving the motor during a single drive operation of the operating unit,
shift to a second control (D2) in which an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor is lower than that in the first control ([0037]) when the motor becomes overloaded, and
shift to a third control (back to D1) in which the an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor is higher than that in the second control when resuming the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit (3, [0025-0041], claims 1-6), and the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the workpiece and a current detection unit (shunt resistor 4/control unit 7) which detects a current flowing through the motor, wherein the control unit detects an overload state of the motor based on a current flowing through the motor ([0002-0004, 0010-0011, 0023-0038], claims 1-8, figs. 1-8).
HOSOKAWA et al. states: “duty ratio is not limited to 2 steps of D1 and D2 but may be equal to or more than 3 steps. The upper limit value of the target load range may be lower than the first threshold value” [0041].
In the alternative, if it can be argued that HOSOKAWA et al. fails to disclose the control unit is configured to shift to a third control in which the output of the motor is higher than the second control when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit, and an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the work
Gupta et al. teaches a similar work machine/power tool (100) having control unit (210) configured to shift to three controls with different outputs (e.g., high, medium, low), and to shift to a third control (high) in which the output of the motor is higher than the second control (medium) when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit, and an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the work (also teaches at least first/second/third high side power switching elements 302 and ow side power switching elements 304 [0033-0040, 0047-0054], figs. 1-8).
Gupta et al. states: “motor controller 210 provides the control signals to control the high side FETs 302 and the low side FETs 304 to drive the motor based on the motor feedback information… disables the second FET pair, and enables a third high side FET 302 and a third low side FET 304” [0039]
DAI et al. also teaches a similar work machine/power tool (impact power tool 1) having control unit (controllers 16/18 and 24/26) configured to shift to three controls with different outputs (three load zones – first/second/third), and to shift to a third control (third zone) in which the output of the motor is higher than the second control (current load higher) when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit (20-rotation speed signal [0026-0028]), and an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the work and a current detection unit (22, [0036]) which detects a current flowing through the motor, wherein the control unit detects an overload state of the motor based on a current flowing through the motor ([0026-0028, 0036-0038, 0046-0050, 0060], figs. 1-8).
Given the teachings of HOSOKAWA et al. to have a work machine/power tool with three different motor controls/steps, it 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 to modify the control unit to be configured to shift to a third control in which the output of the motor is higher than the second control when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit, and an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the work to have precise adjustment of speed/torque for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for safety/feedback control purposes as taught by Gupta et al. and further taught and evidenced by DAI et al.
Regarding claims 2-7, HOSOKAWA et al. discloses resuming of the rotation of the motor is detected after the work unit is released from ([0002-0004, 0010-0011, 0023-0038], claims 1-8, figs. 1-8), wherein the control unit is configured to set an effective value of the voltage applied to the motor constant in the second control, wherein an effective value of the voltage applied to the motor in the first control is a first effective value, an effective value of the voltage applied to the motor in the second control is a second effective value, and the control unit is configured to change the second effective value within a range lower than the first effective value, wherein the control unit is configured to set the second effective value to a third effective value and then set the second effective value to a fourth effective value larger than the third effective value, wherein the control unit is configured to shift to the third control at a timing when the rotation of the motor is detected when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit during execution of control based on the third effective value or during execution of control based on the fourth effective value, wherein the control unit is configured to shift to the third control after execution time of the control based on the third effective value becomes predetermined time A or more when the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit during the execution of the control based on the third effective value (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph concerns for “resuming of the rotation” [0002-0004, 0010-0011, 0023-0038], claims 1-8, figs. 1-8).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12-13, HOSOKAWA et al. discloses a work machine (fig. 1 [0001, 0041]) with a control unit (control unit 7 – triac 9/pick-up coil 11) configured to control a motor (2); an operating unit (switch 6), configured to instruct the control unit to drive/halt the motor [0023-0024]; and a rotation detection unit (control unit 7/pick-up coil 11 [0032-0035]), detecting rotation of the motor, wherein the control unit is configured to execute a first control (D1) for continuously driving the motor during a single drive operation of the operating unit,
shift to a second control (D2) in which effective value of a voltage applied to the motor is lower than that in the first control ([0037]) when the motor becomes overloaded, and
shift to a third control (back to D1) in which the effective value of a voltage applied to the motor is higher than that in the second control when resuming of the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit (3, [0025-0041], claims 1-6), and an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in the second control is such that the motor rotates in a no-load state in which the work unit is not in contact with a workpiece, but does not rotate in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with the workpiece and a current detection unit (shunt resistor 4/control unit 7) which detects a current flowing through the motor, wherein the control unit detects an overload state of the motor based on a current flowing through the motor ([0002-0004, 0010-0011, 0023-0038], claims 1-8, figs. 1-8) and the control unit is configured to change the output of the motor depending on a voltage applied to the motor ([0002-0004, 0010-0011, 0023-0038], claims 1-8, figs. 1-8),
HOSOKAWA et al. states: “duty ratio is not limited to 2 steps of D1 and D2 but may be equal to or more than 3 steps. The upper limit value of the target load range may be lower than the first threshold value” [0041].
HOSOKAWA et al. fails to explicitly discloses the control unit is configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero during predetermined time B when shifting from the first control to the second control, wherein the control unit is configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero when the rotation of the motor is not detected by the rotation detection unit by the time execution time of the second control reaches predetermined time C.
Gupta et al. teaches having a control unit (210) configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero during predetermined time B (time to acceleration, first period of time) when shifting from the first control to the second control, wherein the control unit is configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero when the rotation of the motor is not detected by the rotation detection unit by the time execution time of the second control reaches predetermined time C (run time to motor shut off [0037-0039])
DAI et al. also teaches having a control unit (210) configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero during predetermined time B (time to acceleration, first period of time) when shifting from the first control to the second control, wherein the control unit is configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero when the rotation of the motor is not detected by the rotation detection unit by the time execution time of the second control reaches predetermined time C (run time to motor shut off [0037-0039, 0051-0087], claims 1-2, 6, 9, and 13).
Given the teachings of HOSOKAWA et al. to have a work machine/power tool with three different motor controls/steps, it 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 to modify the control unit to be configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero during predetermined time B when shifting from the first control to the second control, wherein the control unit is configured to set the effective value of the voltage applied to the motor to zero when the rotation of the motor is not detected by the rotation detection unit by the time execution time of the second control reaches predetermined time C to have precise adjustment of speed/torque for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for safety/feedback control purposes as taught by Gupta et al. and DAI et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20140246479 A1 – auto grasping, control system 1400 to automatically control motors [0197, 0315, 0363-0367] and see references cited, form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, Truong Truong can be reached at (571) 272-4472. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731