DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Application filed 03/20/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Elastic element: Coil Spring (154); par 51
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leh et al. (US 20160250738; Leh).
Regarding Claim 1 Leh discloses an impact tool (10), comprising:
an electric motor (20) comprising a motor shaft capable of rotating about a first axis;
a battery pack (28) powering at least the electric motor (20);
an impact assembly (24), drivable by the electric motor (20) to provide an impact force, comprising an elastic element (74);
an output assembly (26, 28) comprising an output shaft (26) for outputting power; and
a control circuit comprising a controller (40), the controller (40) configured to, in a case where an actual rotational speed of the electric motor is lower than a rotational speed threshold, control output torque of the electric motor to be greater than a tension of the elastic element. (par 48-49)
Regarding Claim 4 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses the controller is configured to, in a case where the actual rotational speed of the electric motor is lower than the rotational speed threshold and a duty cycle of a control signal at a current time is less than a duty cycle of the control signal at a previous time, adjust the duty cycle at the current time and set the duty cycle of the control signal at the previous time as the duty cycle at the current time. (par 55, 58, 62)
Regarding Claim 5 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses output torque of the electric motor at the current time is greater than or equal to output torque of the electric motor at the previous time. (par 55-56)
Regarding Claim 6 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses the controller is configured to, in the case where the actual rotational speed of the electric motor is lower than the rotational speed threshold, adjust a variation of a duty cycle of a control signal to be greater than or equal to zero. (par 55, 58, 62)
Regarding Claim 7 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal is a difference between a duty cycle of the control signal at a current time and a duty cycle of the control signal at a previous time. (par 55, 58, 62)
Regarding Claim 8 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses the duty cycle of the control signal at the current time is greater than or equal to the duty cycle of the control signal at the previous time. (par 64)
Regarding Claim 17 Leh discloses an impact toot comprising:
an electric motor (20) comprising a motor shaft capable of rotating about a first axis;
a battery pack (28) powering at least the electric moto (20)r;
an impact assembly (24) drivable by the electric motor (20) to provide an impact force;
an output assembly comprising an output shaft for outputting power; and
a control circuit comprising at least a controller (40), the controller (40) configured to, in a case where an actual rotational speed of the electric motor is lower than a rotational speed threshold, adjust a duty cycle of a control signal at a current time to be at least not less than a duty cycle of the control signal at a previous time. (par 55, 58, 62)
Regarding Claim 19 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses in a case where the duty cycle of the control signal at the current time is less than the duty cycle of the control signal at the previous time, the duty cycle of the control signal at the previous time is set as the duty cycle at the current time. (par 55, 58, 62)
Regarding Claim 20 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a variation of the duty cycle of the control signal is greater than or equal to zero. (par 55, 58, 62)
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.
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.
Claims 2, 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Leh (US 20160250738) in view of Shima (US 20230107745)
Regarding Claim 2 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a controller.
However Leh does not expressly disclose the controller comprises a proportional-integral (PI) controller.
Shima teaches an impact tool (par 116) that includes a controller (30). Shima further teaches controller includes a proportional-integral (PI) controller providing precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 15, 216, 222, 233)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Leh to include a proportional-integral (PI) controller as taught by Shima since par 15, 216, 222, 233 of Shima suggests that such a modification provides precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a controller.
However Leh does not expressly disclose the controller adjusts the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal to be greater than or equal to zero based on proportional adjustment.
Shima teaches an impact tool (par 116) that includes a controller (30). Shima further teaches the controller adjusts the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal to be greater than or equal to zero based on proportional adjustment providing precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Leh to include the controller adjusts the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal to be greater than or equal to zero based on proportional adjustment as taught by Shima since par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233 of Shima suggests that such a modification provides precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a controller.
However Leh does not expressly disclose the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal is proportional to a rotational speed difference of the electric motor.
Shima teaches an impact tool (par 116) that includes a controller (30). Shima further teaches the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal is proportional to a rotational speed difference of the electric motor providing precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Leh to include the variation of the duty cycle of the control signal is proportional to a rotational speed difference of the electric motor as taught by Shima since par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233 of Shima suggests that such a modification provides precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 11 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a controller.
However Leh does not expressly disclose the rotational speed difference of the electric motor is a difference between the rotational speed threshold and an actual rotational speed of the electric motor at a current time or a difference between the actual rotational speed of the electric motor at the current time and the rotational speed threshold.
Shima teaches an impact tool (par 116) that includes a controller (30). Shima further teaches the rotational speed difference of the electric motor is a difference between the rotational speed threshold and an actual rotational speed of the electric motor at a current time or a difference between the actual rotational speed of the electric motor at the current time and the rotational speed threshold. (par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Leh to include the rotational speed difference of the electric motor is a difference between the rotational speed threshold and an actual rotational speed of the electric motor at a current time or a difference between the actual rotational speed of the electric motor at the current time and the rotational speed threshold.as taught by Shima since par 15, 174-176, 216, 222, 233 of Shima suggests that such a modification provides precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18 Leh discloses the invention as described above. Leh further discloses a controller.
However Leh does not expressly disclose the controller comprises a proportional-integral (PI) controller.
Shima teaches an impact tool (par 116) that includes a controller (30). Shima further teaches controller includes a proportional-integral (PI) controller providing precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 15, 216, 222, 233)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Leh to include a proportional-integral (PI) controller as taught by Shima since par 15, 216, 222, 233 of Shima suggests that such a modification provides precise duty ratio, torque and speed control in the impact tool for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12-16 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 Claim 3 The Prior Art does not teach the rotational speed threshold is greater than or equal to a rotational speed of the electric motor corresponding to a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly in addition to the limitations included in claim 1
Regarding Claim 12 The Prior Art does not teach a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly is less than or equal to 200 BPM in addition to the limitations included in claim 1
Regarding Claim 13 The Prior Art does not teach a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly is less than or equal to 150 BPM in addition to the limitations included in claim 1
Regarding Claim 14 The Prior Art does not teach a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly is less than or equal to 100 BPM in addition to the limitations included in claim 1
Regarding Claim 15 The Prior Art does not teach a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly is less than or equal to 70 BPM in addition to the limitations included in claim 1
Regarding Claim 16 Leh discloses an impact tool (10), comprising: an electric motor (20) comprising a motor shaft capable of rotating about a first axis; a battery pack (28) powering at least the electric motor; an impact assembly (24) drivable by the electric motor to provide an impact force; and an output assembly (26, 28) comprising an output shaft for outputting power;
The Prior Art does not teach a lowest impact frequency of the impact assembly is less than or equal to 230 BPM in addition to the limitations included in Claim 16
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 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, 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights