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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HOSOKAWA et al. (US 20150349695 A1) in view of Hermann et al. (US 20050156556 A1) and further in view of IKUTA et al. (JP 2008178935 A).
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, wherein the motor rotates during the first control
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].
HOSOKAWA et al. fails to explicitly disclose the motor stops rotating in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with a workpiece during the second control, the control unit is configured to shift to a third control in which the output of the motor/ effective value of the voltage applied to the motor is higher than the second control when resuming the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit, after the motor has stopped rotating in the loaded state during the second control, 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.
Hermann et al. teaches a similar motor (11) control/variable frequency drive (VFD) 10 in which if the motor stops rotating in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with a workpiece during the second control, the control unit is configured to shift to a third control in which the output of the motor/ effective value of the voltage applied to the motor is higher than the second control when resuming the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit (VFD voltage and frequency (V/f) output to the motor 11), after the motor has stopped rotating in the loaded state during the second control, 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 (stall sensed provides high-torque shaking in which voltage is lowered and raised to higher voltage to break the stall/jam free via modifying the ratio of VFD voltage and frequency (V/f) output to the motor 11 [0018-0031], figs. 1-4).
IKUTA et al. teaches having a rotating no load mode and an increased voltage when contacting a workpiece/load applied with an effective value of a voltage applied to the motor in a 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 (pages 1-3, figs. 1-4).
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 have the motor stop rotating in a loaded state in which the work unit is in contact with a workpiece during the second control, the control unit is configured to shift to a third control in which the output of the motor/ effective value of the voltage applied to the motor is higher than the second control when resuming the rotation of the motor is detected by the rotation detection unit, after the motor has stopped rotating in the loaded state during the second control, 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 workto 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 Hermann et al. and IKUTA 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.
Hermann et al. teaches raising and lowering the voltage for short periods of time and repeating shaking a number of times or periods of times [0023-0030]
IKUTA et al. teaches driving the motor with voltage proportional to the rotation speed (zero rotation, zero voltage, pages 1-5, figs. 1-4).
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), have voltage proportional to the rotation of the motor, and/or for safety/feedback control purposes as taught by Hermann et al. and IKUTA 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 does not rely on all references 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.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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
Prosecution Insights