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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greunke, (US 2024/0408710).
Regarding claim 20, Greunke discloses: A power tool (Fig. 2, rotary hammer 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, housing 14);
an output mechanism (Fig. 2, spindle 23), disposed at least partially in the housing, for driving a function element (Fig. 2, tool bit 24) that implements a set function;
a power supply mounting portion (Fig. 2, first and second receptacles 31, 32) for mounting a direct current power supply (Fig. 2, first and second battery packs 29, 30); and
an electric motor assembly (Fig. 2, first and second motors 18, 20) used for driving the output mechanism comprising:
a first electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a first torque and a first rotational speed (all electric motors output a torque/speed value); and
a second electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a second torque and a second rotational speed (all electric motors output a torque/speed value);
wherein the first electric motor and the second electric motor are configured to have at least one different structural parameter (the motors have different locations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Greunke, (US 2024/0408710) in view of Neumaier, US 4732218.
Regarding claims 13 and 20 (the Examiner notes that the claim limitations of claim 13 also read on claim 20), Greunke discloses: A power tool (Fig. 2, rotary hammer 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, housing 14);
an output mechanism (Fig. 2, spindle 23) for driving a function element that implements a set function;
a power supply mounting portion (Fig. 2, first and second receptacles 31, 32) for mounting a direct current power supply (Fig. 2, first and second battery packs 29, 30); and
an electric motor assembly (Fig. 2, first and second motors 18, 20), disposed at least partially in the housing, comprising:
a first electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a first torque and a first rotational speed and driving the output mechanism (all electric motors output a torque/speed value); and
a second electric motor (Fig. 2, first or second motor 18 or 20) for outputting a second torque and a second rotational speed and driving the output mechanism (all electric motors output a torque/speed value);
wherein the direct current power supply supplies power to the first electric motor and the second electric motor ([0016] “The first and second motors 18, 20 are configured as DC motors that receive power from on-board power sources, such as first and second battery packs 29, 30 that are respectively selectively coupled to first and second receptacles 31, 32 on the housing 14. In some embodiments, only the first battery pack 29 is coupled to the first receptacle 31, and the first and second motors 18, 20 both receive power from the first battery pack 29. In other embodiments, only the second battery pack 30 is coupled to the second receptacle 32 and the first and second motors 18, 20 both receive power from the second battery pack 30. In other embodiments, the first and second battery packs 29, 30 are both respectively coupled to the first and second receptacles 31, 32, and the first motor 18 receives power from the first battery pack 29, and the second motor 20 receives power from the second battery pack 30.”).
Greunke does not explicitly disclose: the first electric motor and the second electric motor have at least one different structural parameter selected from the group consisting of: an outer diameter, a stack length, an outer diameter of a stator core, an inner diameter of the stator core, an outer diameter of a rotor core, an inner diameter of the rotor core, a length of an air gap, and a length of a core.
Neumaier teaches: the first electric motor and the second electric motor have at least one different structural parameter selected from the group consisting of: an outer diameter, a stack length, an outer diameter of a stator core, an inner diameter of the stator core, an outer diameter of a rotor core, an inner diameter of the rotor core, a length of an air gap, and a length of a core (Col. 2, line 7, “The second drive motor intended primarily for driving the rotational force unit can be sized considerably smaller than the first drive unit, that is, it can have approximately 30% of the power output of the first drive motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing to utilize different size drive motors, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it can save power by utilizing a lower powered drive unit which would conserve power. The Examiner further notes that the Greunke reference, Fig. 3, shows different sizes for the motors, but does not explicitly discuss this feature in the specification.
Regarding claim 14, Greunke further discloses: the first electric motor and the second electric motor are each a brushless motor (Milwaukee has been using Brushless motors in this type of tool for over a decade. The following screen shot (Examiner’s Illustration 1) is taken from the official Milwaukee website (URL visible in illustration - https://www.milwaukeetool.com/company/milwaukee-story).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 1
Regarding claim 15, Greunke further discloses: the direct current power supply comprises a battery pack ([0017] “The first and second battery packs 29, 30 may include any of a number of different nominal voltages (e.g., 12V, 18V, etc.),”).
Regarding claim 16, Greunke further discloses: the battery pack supplies power to various power tools (the tool in question is a Milwaukee power tool. These tools are commonly known to utilize interchangeable power packs that are usable in a numerosity of Milwaukee tools).
Regarding claim 17, Greunke further discloses: ratio of the stack length of the first electric motor to the stack length of the second electric motor is greater than or equal to 0.3 (Col. 2, line 7, “The second drive motor intended primarily for driving the rotational force unit can be sized considerably smaller than the first drive unit, that is, it can have approximately 30% of the power output of the first drive motor” – the Examiner notes that stack length and motor power have a direct relationship in otherwise equally designed motors, thus meeting the claim limitation)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greunke.
Regarding claim 18, Greunke discloses the device of claim 13.
Greunke does not explicitly disclose: the nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than 56 V and less than or equal to 120 V.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to select an appropriate voltage range for the tool in question, as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner must note that the current application does not actually specify the voltage of the battery for a specifically claimed tool or embodiment, but merely discusses the fact that a range of available battery voltages can be selected by the designer for a particular tool - ([0234], “In some examples, the nominal voltage of the power tool is greater than 56 V and less than or equal to 120 V. In some examples, the battery pack 21 may be a lithium battery pack, a solid-state battery pack, or a pouch battery pack. The nominal voltage of the battery pack is 18 V, 24 V, 36 V,48 V, 56 V, 80 V, or 120 V”).
Conclusion
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights