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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 15 December 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
Claim 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thorson discloses a power tool (10, fig. 1) adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit, the power tool comprising:
a housing (14, fig. 1);
an electric motor (18, fig. 2) supported in the housing;
an input device ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”);
a reciprocation drive assembly (22, fig. 2) coupled to the electric motor and configured to convert torque from the electric motor to reciprocating motion of a drive piston (50, fig. 2) for reciprocation along a reciprocation axis (74, fig. 2) ([0028]);
a striker (78, fig. 2) that reciprocates in response to reciprocation of the drive piston ([0030]);
an anvil (86, fig. 2) positioned between the striker and the tool bit (30, fig. 2) (As shown in figure 2), the anvil configured to transmit axial impacts from the striker to the tool bit ([0030]), and
an electronic controller ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the top-level or master controller as the claimed, “an electronic controller”) operably coupled to the electric motor and the input device ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 describes the controller operatively connected to a switch of the trigger and a motor) to impart the axial impacts to the tool bit.
Thorson does not disclose the electronic controller being operable to receive a first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating a first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set an operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed, receive a second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating a second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, and in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed.
Dey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a power tool (600, fig. 16. Col. 27, ll. 15 – 17 describes a hammer drill/driver 600 wherein the hammer drill is a known power tool adapted to impart axial impacts on a tool bit) adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit having an electric motor (214, fig. 3A); an input device (208, figs. 3A and 4; and 602, 604, 606, fig. 16); an electronic controller (226, fig. 3A) operably coupled to the electric motor and the input device (As shown in fig. 3A), the electronic controller being operable to receive a first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating a first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set an operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed (Col. 24, ll. 24 – 29 describes a controller 226 operable to decode different mode profiles and control the power tool according to the features and parameters specified by that mode profile wherein col. 6, ll. 28 – 33 describes that controlling the power tool includes controlling a speed of a motor 214. Col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 describes a user can then elect whether the hammer drill/driver is in the low-speed setting or high-speed setting based on the position of the high-low speed selector 606 wherein col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 further describes a mode profile called a trigger speed control map feature that allows a user to separately specify a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting. Thus, in the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the low-speed setting, a controller 226 receives this first signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified low-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed), receive a second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating a second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, and in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed (In the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the high-speed setting, the controller 226 receives this second signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified high-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the high-speed setting – which is greater than the maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed).
Dey is evidence that having the electronic controller being operable to receive the first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating the first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed, receive the second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating the second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, and in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Thorson with the input devices and the functions of the electric controller of Dey. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power tool of Thorson with the input devices and the functions of the electric controller of Dey with the motivation to allow the user to specify the maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting according to the needs of the fasteners used, the workpieces being worked upon, and/or the operation being performed.
Regarding claim 2, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Thorson does not explicitly disclose a speed sensor configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor, wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive an input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed..
However, Dey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a speed sensor (218, fig. 3A) configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor (126, fig. 3A) (Col. 7, ll. 55 – 59 describes sensors 218 capable of detecting the motor speed and other parameters of the motor), wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive an input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed (Col. 6, ll. 49 – 63 describes motor feedback information from sensors 218 used by a controller 226 to provide closed-loop feedback to control the speed of a motor 214 to a desired level).
Dey is evidence that having the speed sensor configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor, wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive the input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Thorson with the speed sensor and the functions of the electric controller of Dey. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power tool of Thorson with the speed sensor and the functions of the electric controller of Dey with the motivation to ensure the speed of the motor is regulated and corresponds to the pull of the trigger or to the specification of the user regardless of load or other variations that may variate the motor speed.
Regarding claim 3, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Thorson discloses the input device comprises a trigger ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”. Please note, the term, “comprises”, denotes an open-ended list of elements that make up the input device wherein the trigger is just one element in that list) supported by the housing (14, fig. 1) (As shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Thorson discloses the input device (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”; and Dey – 208, figs. 3A and 4; and 602, 604, 606, fig. 16) comprises a mode selector (Dey – 208, figs. 3A and 4) supported by the housing (Thorson – 14, fig. 1), and wherein the power tool further comprises a trigger (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”) supported by the housing (Thorson – As shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 4.
The modified Thorson discloses in response to a start signal from the trigger (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16, “trigger”), the electronic controller (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16, “top-level or master controller”) is configured to operate the electric motor (Thorson – 18, fig. 2) at the first constant speed in accordance with receiving the first signal (Col. 24, ll. 24 – 29 describes a controller 226 operable to decode different mode profiles and control the power tool according to the features and parameters specified by that mode profile wherein col. 6, ll. 28 – 33 describes that controlling the power tool includes controlling a speed of a motor 214. Col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 describes a user can then elect whether the hammer drill/driver is in the low-speed setting or high-speed setting based on the position of the high-low speed selector 606 wherein col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 further describes a mode profile called a trigger speed control map feature that allows a user to separately specify a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting. Thus, in the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the low-speed setting, a controller 226 receives this first signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified low-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed) and at the second constant speed in accordance with receiving the second signal (In the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the high-speed setting, the controller 226 receives this second signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified high-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the high-speed setting – which is greater than the maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 7 and independent claim 8, the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 9 – 14 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 8.
Claims 7 and 8 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 7 – 8, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 7 – 8 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
the electronic controller being operable to:
receive a first acceleration selection from the mode selector, the first acceleration selection indicating a first acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponding to a first impact time for impact energy to be delivered,
in response to the first acceleration selection, set an operational acceleration rate of the electric motor to the first acceleration rate, the operational acceleration rate corresponding to a time period during which the electric motor is accelerated from a stopped state to a desired constant speed,
receive a second acceleration selection from the mode selector, the second acceleration selection indicating a second acceleration rate of the electric motor that is greater than the first acceleration rate corresponding to a second impact time for impact energy to be delivered that is less than the first impact time, and
in response to the second acceleration selection, set the operational acceleration rate of the electric motor to the second acceleration rate.
The closest prior art is Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2). Dey teaches an electronic controller being operable to receive a first acceleration selection from the mode selector wherein the first acceleration selection indicating a first acceleration rate of the electric motor and to receive a second acceleration selection from the mode selector wherein the second acceleration selection indicating a second acceleration rate of the electric motor that is greater than the first acceleration rate. However, Dey does not disclose that the first acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponds to a first impact time for impact energy to be delivered or that the second acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponds to a second impact time for impact energy to be delivered that is less than the first impact time – as required by the claim. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the above cited limitations. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 6 and independent claim 15, the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 16 – 20 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 15.
Claims 6 and 15 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 6 and 15, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 6 and 15 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
the electronic controller being operable to:
receive a second mode selection from the mode selector, and
according to the second mode selection, repeatedly cycle a motor speed of the electric motor between the constant speed and a stopped state in response to the start signal from the trigger
The closest prior art is Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2). Dey teaches an electronic controller. However, Dey does not disclose receiving the second mode selection from the mode selector, and according to the second mode selection, repeatedly cycle the motor speed of the electric motor between the constant speed and the stopped state in response to the start signal from the trigger – as required by the claim. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the above cited limitations. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The drawings were received on 15 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 5, and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 5, and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Thorson and Dey, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest an electronic controller operable to set an operational speed of an electric motor to a first and second constant in response to a first and second signal, respectively. To support a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner must establish "a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference." MPEP § 2143(A) (citing KSR Int'7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). To overcome the rejection, Applicant need only identify a single limitation that is not arranged or combined in the prior art in the same way as recited in the claim.
The Office admits that Thorson does not teach an electronic controller operable to set an operational speed of an electric motor to a first constant speed and second constant speed in response to a first signal and second signal, respectively. Office action, p. 6. The Office then relies on Dey to cure this deficiency, alleging that Dey teaches a power tool (e.g., hammer drill/driver 600) having an electric controller (e.g., controller 226) and various mode profiles. Id., p. 7. In particular, the Office relies on Dey's "trigger speed control map" profile for a hammer drill where a trigger 212 and a high-low speed selector 606 can switch the hammer drill/driver operation between a low-speed and a high-speed setting having distinct user-specified maximum speeds. See id., p. 7-8. The Office equates the user-specified maximum speeds to the claimed first and second constant speeds. See id.
But a maximum speed is not a constant speed. In fact, Dey expressly provides that the trigger speed control map profile relied on by the Office allows for variable speed operation, see Dey 27:2-7 (describing the same trigger speed control map in the context of another mode as "allow[ing] a user to specify the minimum and maximum speed parameter values of the power tool 104, whose speed varies between a minimum and maximum speed based on the position of the trigger 212") (emphasis added). Thus, Dey fails to cure the deficiencies of Thorson.
In response to applicant’s argument that Dey does not teach the limitations, “a first constant speed” and “a second constant speed”, because “a maximum speed is not a constant speed”, the examiner maintains that the maximum speeds (i.e., a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting) are constant speeds since these maximum speeds are only obtained when the trigger is a fully pulled position. That is, when the trigger is held in the fully pulled position in either the low-speed setting or the high-speed setting, the motor speed is driven steadily or at a constant rate at its maximum set speed. Please note, claim does not require that the motor speed be constant during the full range of pull of the trigger. In the instant case, the examiner points to one specific pull location and when the trigger is maintained at that one specific pull location, the speed of the motor is constant. Given this interpretation, Dey reads on the claim.
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 DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
9 January 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731