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 .
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 1, 2, 7, 9-10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al. (hereinafter Mergener, US 2013/0292147 A1) in view of Hata et al. (hereinafter Hata, US 2020/0260643 A1).
For claim 1, Mergener discloses an electric work machine (Fig. 1 of Mergener disclose an electric machine 100 – see Mergener, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018, lines 1-3), comprising:
a motor (Fig. 2 of Mergener discloses a motor 180 – see Mergener, Fig. 2, paragraph [0019], lines 9-12);
a first manual switch configured to be manually operated by a user of the electric work machine (Fig. 2 of Mergener discloses a first manual switch 215 configured to be manually operated by a user of the electric work machine 100 – see Mergener, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]);
a second manual switch configured (i) to be manually operated by the user and (ii) to thereby be moved within a movement range, the movement range including a first region, a second region, and a third region (Figs. 2-5 of Mergener discloses a second manual switch 220 configured (i) to be manually operated by the user and (ii) to thereby be moved within a movement range, the movement range including a first region, a second region, and a third region – see Mergener, Figs. 2-5, paragraph [0026]. It is noted that Mergener’s the direction switch 220 has first position which is in the Forward operation, second position which is in Reverse operation and third position which is in the Neutral operation. Three positions of switch 220 indicate the movement range including a first region, a second region and a third region); and
a control circuit (Figs. 2 and 8 of Mergener discloses a print circuit board 175 which contains a control circuit 200 – see Mergener, Figs. 2 and 8, paragraphs [0021 and [0029]) configured to:
rotate the motor in accordance with a first control system, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch being within the first region (Figs 2-4 and 8-9 of Mergener disclose rotating the motor 180 in accordance with a first control system, based on (i) the first manual switch 215 being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch 220 being within the first region (for example, second manual switch 220 is operated at a first position corresponding to Forward operation as shown in Fig. 3) – see Mergener , Figs. 3-4 and 8-9, paragraphs [0024]; [0025], lines 1-8 and [0026], 1-23; and [0034]),
stop the motor, based on (i) the first manual switch not being manually operated and/or (ii) the second manual switch being within the second region (Figs. 2, 5 and 9 of Mergener discloses stop the motor 180, based on (i) the first manual switch 215 not being manually operated and/or (ii) the second manual switch being within the second region (for example, the second manual switch 220 is operated at Neutral operation as shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 9, step 430, Y) – see Mergener, Figs. 2, 5 and 9, paragraphs [0024], lines 17-20; [0025], lines 8-15; [0034], lines 1-5), and
rotate the motor in accordance with a second control system, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch being within the third region (Figs. 2, 4-5 and 9 of Mergener disclose rotate the motor in accordance with a second control system, based on (i) the first manual switch 215 being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch 220 being within the third region (For example, second manual switch 220 is operated at Reverse operation as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 9, step 445) – Mergener, Figs. 2, 4-5 and 9, paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0026, lines 13-18).
Mergener is silent for disclosing a second control system being different from the first control system.
However, Hata discloses an electric work machine, including a motor and control circuit, which is similar as Mergener’s electric working machine (Figs. 1-2 of Hata disclose an electric work machine 1 including a motor 20 and control circuit 9). Hata discloses a second control system being different from the first control system (Hata discloses the control circuit which may perform automatic shifting control and manual shifting control, wherein the automatic shifting control reads onto a second control system and the manual shifting control reads onto a first second control system – see Hata, paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener such that the two operative positions/regions of its manually movable selector select, respectively, the manual shift control and the automatic shifting control taught by Hata while retaining Mergener’s intermediate neutral position as a motor -stop region for purpose of yielding the predictable result of operating the motor according to the selected control mode.
For claim 2, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the second manual switch is configured (i) to be moved from the first region to the third region through the second region and/or (ii) to be moved from the third region to the first region through the second region (Figs. 3-5 of Mergener discloses the second manual switch 220 configured to be moved from the third region/ Reverse operation to the first region/Forward operation through the second region/neutral operation – see Mergener, Figs. 3-5, paragraph [00226]).
For claim 7, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the first control system includes: setting a desired rotational speed in accordance with a position of the second manual switch within the first region (Figs. 6-9 of Mergener disclose speed selector switch 165 which permits selection between first and second motor speed, and Mergener states that three and mote speeds may alternatively be provided – see Mergener, Figs. 6-7, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]); and
rotating the motor at the desired rotational speed that has been set (Fig. 9 of Mergener discloses rotating the motor 280 at the desired rotational speed that has been set – see Mergener, Fig. 9, paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
For claim 9, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the second control system (Hata discloses the automatic shifting control which indicates the second control system – see Hata, paragraph [0018]) includes:
setting a desired rotational speed in accordance with a magnitude of a load being applied to the motor (Fig. 3 of Hata discloses setting a desired rotational speed in accordance with a magnitude of a load being applied to the motor 20 – see Hata, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0079]-[0099]) ; and
rotating the motor at the desired rotational speed that has been set see Hata, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0079]-[0098].
For claim 10, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 9, wherein
the second control system (Hata discloses the automatic shifting control which indicates the second control system – see Hata, paragraph [0018]) further includes:
setting the desired rotational speed to a first speed, based on the magnitude of the load being less than a threshold (see Hata, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0091]-[0098]); and
setting the desired rotational speed to a second speed, based on the magnitude of the load being greater than or equal to the threshold, and the second speed is greater than the first speed (see Hata, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0095]-[0098]).
For claim 15, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the first manual switch includes a trigger (Fig. 2 of Mergener discloses the first manual switch 215 which includes a trigger 215 – see Mergener, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024], lines 1-7), and
the first manual switch being manually operated includes the trigger being moved a distance greater than or equal to a specific distance from an initial position (see Mergener, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0024]).
Claim 18 is "method" claim which is either same or similar to that of the "an electric work machin" claim 1. Explanation is omitted.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al. (hereinafter Mergener, US 2013/0292147 A1) in view of Hata et al. (hereinafter Hata, US 2020/0260643 A1), further in view of Arnold et al. (hereinafter Arnold, US 4,258,368 A).
For claim 3, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the control circuit is configured to execute a first stop operation to stop the motor (Figs. 3-5 and 8-9 discloses the control circuit 200 configured to execute a first stop operation to stop the motor 180 – see Mergener, Figs. 3-5 and 8-9, paragraphs [0032]-[0035], based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated (see Mergener, Figs. 3-5 and 8-9, paragraphs [0026] and [0033]-[0035]) and (ii) the second manual switch having been moved from the first region to the third region (Hata discloses first and second different motor control systems, including automatic shifting control and manual shifting control (see Hata, paragraph [0018]).
Mergener in view of Hata does not disclose two opposed operating positions select the claimed first and second different control system.
However, Arnold discloses a drive motor of a power tool which maintains a stopped/interlocked condition associated with changing between the first and second different control system (see Arnold, Figs. 1-4 , Abstract, col. 1, lines 38-46 and col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener in view of Hata according to Arnold so that movement of the mode selector from the first control system region toward the third control system region while the trigger remains operated causes a stop operation and does not permit an unintended automatic transition/restart into the newly selected operating mode for purpose of preventing unexpected motor restart following a motor stoppage.
For claim 4, Mergener in view of Hata, further in view of Arnold discloses all limitations as applied to claim 3 above. Mergener in view of Hata disclose the control circuit configured to rotate the motor in accordance with the second control system (see explanation in claim 1 above) which is silent to be based on (i) the first stop operation being performed, (ii) subsequently a manual operation of the first manual switch being released, and (iii) further subsequently the first manual switch having been manually operated. However, Arnold discloses the control circuit configured to rotate the motor in accordance with the second control system, based on (i) the first stop operation being performed (see Arnold, Fig. 2, claim 1, col. 3, lines 13-32), (ii) subsequently a manual operation of the first manual switch being released (see Arnold, Figs 2 and 4, col. 5, lines 17-32), and (iii) further subsequently the first manual switch having been manually operated (see Arnold, Figs. 2, 5- 9, abstract, col. 3, ,line 62 through col. 4, line 20 and col. 5, line 64 through col 6, line 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener in view of Hata to corporate teaching of Arnold for purpose of reducing the risk of injury to the operator and damage to the tool.
For claim 5, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the control circuit is configured to execute a second stop operation to stop the motor, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch having been moved from the third region to the first region (Mergener in view of Hata discloses the control circuit configured to execute stop of the motor, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch having been moved from the third region to the first region (see explanation in claims 2 above). Mergener in view of Hata does not disclose executing a second stop operation to stop the motor, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch having been moved from the third region to the first region. However, Arnold discloses executing a second stop operation to stop the motor, based on (i) the first manual switch being manually operated and (ii) the second manual switch having been moved from the third region to the first region (see Arnold, Figs. 1-4, col. 1, line 38 through col. 2, line 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener in view of Hata to corporate teaching of Arnold for purpose of preventing unexpected motor restart following a motor stoppage.
For claim 6, Mergener in view of Hata, further in view of Arnold discloses all limitations as applied to claim 5 above. Mergener in view of Hata, further in view of Arnold discloses the control circuit is configured to rotate the motor in accordance with the first control system, based on (i) the second stop operation being performed (see explanation in claim 5 above).
Mergener in view of Hata, further in view of Arnold does not disclose (ii) subsequently a manual operation of the first manual switch being released, and (ii) further subsequently the first manual switch having been manually operated.
However, Arnold discloses (ii) subsequently a manual operation of the first manual switch being released, and (ii) further subsequently the first manual switch having been manually operated (see Arnold, Figs. 2 and 4, claim 1, col. 1, line 38 through col. 2, line 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener in view of Hata to corporate teaching of Arnold for purpose of preventing unexpected motor automatic restart following a motor stoppage.
Claims 8, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al. (hereinafter Mergener, US 2013/0292147 A1) in view of Hata et al. (hereinafter Hata, US 2020/0260643 A1), further in view of Hozumi (US 2016/0351355 A1).
For claim 8, Mergener in view of Hata discloses all limitations as applied in claim 2 above. Mergener in view of Hata discloses the first control system which is silent for increasing a desired rotational speed with an increase in a distance between the second manual switch and the second region; and rotating the motor at the desired rotational speed. However, Hozumi discloses a power tool including a power tool trigger whose displacement controls motor rotational speed, and increasing a desired rotational speed with an increase in a distance between the second manual switch and the second region (see Hozumi, Figs. 5-7 and 12, paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Mergener in view of Hata to corporate teaching of Hozumi for purpose of providing intuitive operator control of motor speed.
For claim 12, Mergener in view of Hata discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Mergener in view of Hata does not disclose a click feel generator configured to generate a click feel in the second manual switch, in response to the second manual switch moving within the movement range having reached a specific position within the movement range. However, Hozumi discloses a power tool including a click feel generator configured to generate a click feel in the second manual switch (see Hozumi, Figs. 5-6 and 15, paragraphs [0053], [0058]-[0060], [0072] and [0077]-[0078]) in response to the second manual switch moving within the movement range having reached a specific position within the movement range (see Hozumi, Figs. 12 and 15, paragraph [0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the second manual switch if Mergener in view of Hata with Hozumi’s spring-ball and detent click mechanism for purpose of receiving tactile feedback upon the selector reaching predetermined positions.
For claim 13, Mergener in view of Hata, further in view of Hozumi discloses the electric work machine according to claim 12, wherein
the movement range includes a switching occurrence region (see Hozumi, Figs. 5-6 and 15, paragraphs [0053], [0058], [0060] and [0077]-[0078]), and
the click feel generator is configured to generate the click feel in the second manual switch, in response to (i) the second manual switch having been moved from an outside of the switching occurrence region into the switching occurrence region (see Hozumi, Figs. 12 and 15, paragraph [0077]) and/or (ii) the second manual switch having left the switching occurrence region (see Hozumi, Figs. 12 and 15, paragraph [0077]).
For claim 16, Mergener in view of Hata discloses all limitation as applied to claim 1 above. Mergener in view of Hata discloses the second manual switch which does not include a lever configured to be pivotally moved by the user. However, Hozumi discloses the second manual switch which includes a lever configured to be pivotally moved by the user (see Hozumi, Figs. 5-6, paragraphs [0052], [0058] and [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement Mergener’s manually movable mode selector using Hozumi’s pivotally/rotatably supported lever configuration because sliding and pivoting selector mechanisms are known mechanical alternatives for transmitting a user’s manual input to a power tool control switchm and the substitution would predictably perform the same mode selection function.
For claim 17, Mergener in view of Hata discloses the electric work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a grip configured to be gripped by a single hand of the user (Fig. 1 of Mergener disclose a grip 115 configured to be gripped by a single hand of the user – see Mergener, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]). Mergener in view of Hata discloses the first manual switch and the second manual switch which are not arranged on the grip or in a vicinity of the grip to allow the user to simultaneously operate the first manual switch and the second manual switch by the single hand while gripping the grip by the single hand.
However, Hozumi discloses the first manual switch and the second manual switch which are not arranged on the grip or in a vicinity of the grip to allow the user to simultaneously operate the first manual switch and the second manual switch by the single hand while gripping the grip by the single hand (see Hozumi, Figs. 1-3, abstract, paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second manual switches of Mergener in view of Hata on or adjacent the grip according to Hozumi’s one-hand operable arrangement so that the user can operate both switches without releasing the grip, thereby improving operability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al. (hereinafter Mergener, US 2013/0292147 A1) in view of Hata et al. (hereinafter Hata, US 2020/0260643 A1), further in view of Kato (US 2023/0144684 A1).
For claim 11, Mergener in view of Hata discloses all limitations as applied to claim 9 above. Mergener in view of Hata discloses the second control system which is silent for including:
setting the desired rotational speed to a first speed, based on the magnitude of the load being less than a threshold; and
setting the desired rotational speed to a second speed, based on the magnitude of the load being greater than or equal to the threshold, and the second speed is smaller than the first speed.
However, Kato discloses a power tool including a motor and motor control circuit (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kato disclose a power tool 10 including a motor 50 and motor control circuit 100 – see Kato, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0059] and [0087]), wherein Kato’s motor control circuit includes:
setting the desired rotational speed to a first speed, based on the magnitude of the load being less than a threshold (see Kato, Fig. 6A-6B, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0050]-[0052]); and
setting the desired rotational speed to a second speed, based on the magnitude of the load being greater than or equal to the threshold, and the second speed is smaller than the first speed (see Kato, Figs. 6A-6B and 10, claim 1, paragraphs [0156], [0159], [0163] and [0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the load responsive speed reduction technique of Kato as one of the automatic load responsive control characteristics of Hata because doing so would inhibit excessive motor current when a relatively large load is encountered while permitting continued motor operation, as expressly contemplated by Kata’s reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Sep 30, 2026
