DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGP# 20240408737 of Kuroyanagi et al. (henceforth Kuroyanagi).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
An electric drill (1), comprising:
a housing (2) comprising at least a grip (22) and a battery pack interface (23), wherein the battery pack interface is used for mounting a battery pack (20) for supplying power to the electric drill (para 0079);
an electric motor (6) disposed in the housing and comprising a stator (61) and a rotor (62);
a driver circuit (15, 16, 24) comprising a plurality of switches (16, 24) disposed on a current path from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0096);
a controller (17) configured to switch on and off the plurality of switches to adjust power supply from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0099);
an output shaft (81, 82) for mounting a working head (100); and
a transmission mechanism (30) connected between the rotor and the output shaft (fig. 4), wherein the transmission mechanism is a two-stage deceleration mechanism (para 0083) and comprises
a first-stage deceleration mechanism (31) and
a second-stage deceleration mechanism (33),
the electric motor drives the working head to rotate via the transmission mechanism and the output shaft (para 0083).
wherein, when torque of the electric drill is greater than or equal to approximately 6 newton-meters and less than or equal to approximately 8 newton-meters a maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2000rpm (para 0233 “rotational speed Na of the motor 6 is approximately 1,900 rpm (or more) when the torque of the output part 8 is 6 N.Math.m.” As such Kuroyanagi contemplates speeds higher than 1900rpm can achieve a torque of 6N.math.m).
Should the Applicant contend that Kuroyanagi does not teach when torque of the electric drill is greater than or equal to approximately 6 newton-meters and less than or equal to approximately 8 newton-meters a maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2000rpm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the maximum rotational speed of the working head greater than or equal to 2000 rpm when the torque is between 6-8 N.M, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to improve drilling speed without damaging/overheating the tool, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Kuroyanagi teaches a maximum rotational speed of the working head is 2400 rpm (para 0222) and therefore does not teach the maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2800 rpm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the maximum rotational speed of the working head greater than or equal to 2800 rpm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to improve drilling speed without damaging/overheating the tool, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein the electric drill comprises two speed gears (para 0089) which are a high speed gear (speed “3”, para 0089) and a low speed gear (speed “1”, para 0089).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein a diameter of the electric motor is greater than 50 mm (para 0185, 0188).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein a voltage of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 20 V (para 0038).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein a low speed ratio of the transmission mechanism is less than or equal to 15 (para 0194), and a high speed ratio of the transmission mechanism is greater than or equal to 45 (para 0195).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 6, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein, when the electric drill is in a high speed gear, a ratio of a rotational speed of the electric motor to a rotational speed of the working head is the low speed ratio (para 0194) and, when the electric drill is in a low speed gear, the ratio of the rotational speed of the electric motor to the rotational speed of the working head is the high speed ratio (para 0194-0195).
Regarding claim 17, Kuroyanagi teaches
A handheld power tool (1), comprising:
a housing (2) comprising at least a grip (22) and a battery pack interface (23), wherein the battery pack interface is used for mounting a battery pack (20) for supplying power to the handheld power tool (para 0079);
an electric motor (6) disposed in the housing and comprising a stator (61) and a rotor (62);
a driver circuit (15, 16, 24) comprising a plurality of switches (16, 24) disposed on a current path from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0096);
a controller (17) configured to switch on and off the plurality of switches to adjust power supply from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0099);
an output shaft (81, 82) for mounting a working head (100); and
a transmission mechanism (30) connected between the rotor and the output shaft (fig. 4),
the electric motor drives the working head to rotate via the transmission mechanism and the output shaft (para 0083).
and when torque is approximately 6 to 8 newton-meters, a maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2000 rpm (para 0233 “rotational speed Na of the motor 6 is approximately 1,900 rpm (or more) when the torque of the output part 8 is 6 N.Math.m.” As such Kuroyanagi contemplates speeds higher than 1900rpm can achieve a torque of 6N.math.m).
Should the contend that Kuroyanagi does not teach when torque is approximately 6 to 8 newton-meters, a maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2000 rpm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the maximum rotational speed of the working head greater than or equal to 2000 rpm when the torque is between 6-8 N.M, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to improve drilling speed without damaging/overheating the tool, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 17, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein the handheld power tool is a dual-speed electric drill (para 0089).
Regarding claim 19, as shown in claim 17, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein a maximum rotational speed of the electric motor is less than or equal to 40000 rpm (para 0221).
Regarding claim 20, as shown in claim 17, Kuroyanagi teaches
wherein a low speed ratio of the transmission mechanism is less than or equal to 15 (para 0194), and a high speed ratio of the transmission mechanism is greater than or equal to 45 (para 0195).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi in view of USPGP# 20250274070 of Zhao et al. (henceforth Zhao).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi does not teach
wherein the battery pack is a pouch battery pack.
Zhao teaches
An electric drill (100), comprising:
a housing (108) comprising at least a grip (110) and a battery pack interface (120), wherein the battery pack interface is used for mounting a battery pack (104) for supplying power to the electric drill;
an electric motor (para 0033) disposed in the housing and comprising a stator (inherent part of motor) and a rotor (inherent part of motor);
a driver circuit (450) comprising a plurality of switches (para 0064) disposed on a current path from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0064);
a controller (410) configured to switch on and off the plurality of switches to adjust power supply from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0064-0065);
an output shaft (114) for mounting a working head (para 0033);
wherein the battery pack is a pouch battery pack (para 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the battery pack of Kuroyanagi with a pouch battery pack, as taught by Zhao, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the battery pack to be more compact.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi in view of USPGP# 20220286018 of Xu et al. (henceforth Xu).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi does not teach
wherein the electric motor is configured to achieve the maximum rotational speed of the working head based on field-oriented control (FOC) control.
Xu teaches
a power tool (para 0145) comprising an electric motor (19) and a controller (30); wherein the electric motor is configured to achieve a maximum rotational speed of a working head (20) based on field-oriented control (FOC) control (para 0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Kuroyanagi such that it uses field-oriented control (FOC) control to control motor speed, as taught by Xu, in order to provide the predictable result of smooth switching between different motor speeds (Xu: para 0158). This reduces the chance of motor damage and/or abrupt speed changes which may cause user injury.
Regarding claim 10, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
a maximum rotational speed of the electric motor is less than (para 0221).
Kuroyanagi does not teach
wherein based on FOC field-weakening control for controlling a maximum rotational speed of the electric motor.
Xu teaches
a power tool (para 0145) comprising an electric motor (19) and a controller (30); wherein based on FOC field-weakening control for controlling a maximum rotational speed of the electric motor is achieved (para 0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Kuroyanagi such that it uses field-oriented control (FOC) control to control motor speed, as taught by Xu, in order to provide the predictable result of smooth switching between different motor speeds (Xu: para 0158). This reduces the chance of motor damage and/or abrupt speed changes which may cause user injury.
Regarding claim 11, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi does not teach
wherein the controller is configured to control a voltage outputted from the battery pack to the electric motor to change approximately in a sine wave or a saddle wave.
Xu teaches
a power tool (para 0145) comprising an electric motor (19); a battery pack (13) and a controller (30); wherein the controller is configured to control a voltage outputted from the battery pack to the electric motor to change approximately in a sine wave or a saddle wave (para 0087, 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Kuroyanagi such that the controller is configured to control a voltage supplied to electric motor using a sine wave or a saddle wave, as taught by Xu, in order to provide the predictable result of improved motor efficiency and heavy load handling (Xu: para 0093).
Claim 12-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi in view of USPGP# 20120169256 of Suda et al. (henceforth Suda).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 1, Kuroyanagi teaches
an actuator sleeve (13), wherein the actuator sleeve is operable by a user to rotate about the output shaft to set a working mode of the electric drill (para 0091, 0124-0125).
Kuroyanagi does not teach
a detection element; the detection element detects a rotational state of the actuator sleeve, and the controller is configured to be communicatively connected to the detection element to acquire the rotational state and acquire the working mode according to the rotational state.
Suda teaches
An electric drill (10), comprising:
a housing (14) comprising at least a grip (13) and a battery pack interface (lower end of 13), wherein the battery pack interface is used for mounting a battery pack (15) for supplying power to the electric drill (para 00151);
an electric motor (30) disposed in the housing and comprising a stator (inherent part of motor) and a rotor (153);
a driver circuit (fig. 4) comprising a plurality of switches (fig. 4) disposed on a current path from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0152-156);
a controller (31) configured to switch on and off the plurality of switches to adjust power supply from the battery pack to the electric motor (para 0152-0156);
an output shaft (17) for mounting a working head (para 0115); and
a transmission mechanism (45) connected between the rotor and the output shaft (fig. 2a),
the electric motor drives the working head to rotate via the transmission mechanism and the output shaft (para 0125, fig. 2a);
an actuator sleeve (19) and a detection element (37, 38), wherein the actuator sleeve is operable by a user to rotate about the output shaft to set a working mode of the electric drill (para 0117, fig. 1); the detection element detects a rotational state of the actuator sleeve (para 0143-0149), and the controller is configured to be communicatively connected to the detection element to acquire the rotational state and acquire the working mode according to the rotational state (para 0143-0149).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electric drill of Kuroyanagi with the addition of a detection element, as taught by Suda, in order to produce the predictable result of providing a plurality of operation modes, a user can easily and reliably change control parameters for use at the plurality of operation modes, per operation mode, without increase in mounting area in the electric power tool and cost of the electric power tool (Suda: para 0023).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 12, the combination of Kuroyanagi and Suda teaches
wherein the working mode comprises a drill gear mode (Kuroyanagi: para 0095, Suda: fig. 3b) which uses a drill gear (Kuroyanagi: para 0095, Suda: 55), a hammer gear mode (Kuroyanagi: para 0091, Suda: fig. 3a) which uses a hammer gear (Kuroyanagi: para 0091, Suda: 56), and a screw gear mode (Kuroyanagi: para 0095, Suda: clutch mode, para 0119) which uses a screw gear (Kuroyanagi: para 0095, Suda: para 0174-0175), and a rotational speed limit of the drill gear is higher than a rotational speed limit of the hammer gear and a rotational speed limit of the screw gear (Suda: fig. 5-6B).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 13, the combination of Kuroyanagi and Suda does not teach
wherein, when the electric drill is in the drill gear mode, the maximum rotational speed of the working head of the electric drill is greater than or equal to 2800 rpm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the electric drill is in the drill gear mode have a maximum rotational speed of the working head greater than or equal to 2800 rpm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to improve drilling speed without damaging/overheating the tool, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 13, the combination of Kuroyanagi and Suda does not teach
wherein, when the electric drill is in the hammer gear mode or the screw gear mode, the maximum rotational speed of the working head of the electric drill is greater than or equal to 2300 rpm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the electric drill in the hammer gear mode or the screw gear mode, have a maximum rotational speed of the working head greater than or equal to 2300 rpm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to improve screwing speed without damaging/overheating the tool, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/30/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (bullet I), Applicant contends that Kuroyanagi does not teach “when torque of the electric drill is greater than or equal to approximately 6 newton-meters and less than or equal to approximately 8 newton-meters a maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2000rpm” since the example provided in para 00232-0233 gives a torque of 6N-M at 1900rpm.
Para 0233 states “rotational speed Na of the motor 6 is approximately 1,900 rpm (or more) when the torque of the output part 8 is 6 N.Math.m.” As such, even for speeds greater than 1900rpm (i.e. claimed 2000rpm), Kuroyanagi contemplates having a torque of 6N-m even at speeds greater than 1900rpm.
Regarding claim 1 (bullet I), Applicant additionally contends that achieving 6N-m at 2000rpm is not routine optimization since it requires certain elements such as the combination of the two-stage deceleration mechanism, field-oriented control and field-weakening control, an electric motor diameter greater than 50 mm, a pouch battery pack, and battery voltage greater than or equal to 20 V.
Independent claim 1 only claims a two stage deceleration mechanism which the art of Kuroyanagi teaches. There are no other technical features claimed in the independent claim. Additionally, the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Therefore, the functional effect of achieving 6N-m at 2000rpm is interpreted to be achievable with just the two stage deceleration mechanism. Any critical elements that are essential for achieving the claimed performance should be claimed. A functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 5 and Kuroyanagi in view of Zhao (bullet III), Applicant states that the combination does not teach coordinated system architecture that supports the claimed performance.
Kuroyanagi teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except for the battery pack being in a pouch format. Zhao teaches a batteries for power tools that can be formed in a pouch form. Therefore the combination teaches the claimed coordinated system architecture.
Regarding claims 9-11 and Kuroyanagi in view of Xu (bullet IV), Applicant states FOC control provides control features that achieve the desired performance that is beyond mere routine speed optimization.
Kuroyanagi teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except for FOC control of the motor. Xu teaches using FOC control for a power tool. Therefore, the combination of Kuroyanagi and Xu, having the same elements and control features (of FOC), will achieve claimed performance.
Regarding claim 12 and Kuroyanagi in view of Araki (bullet VI), Applicant states the combination does not teach the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 12 depends.
See Examiner remarks for claim 1. The missing limitations of the detection element are taught by Araki.
Regarding claims 12-15 and Kuroyanagi in view of Suda (bullet VII), Applicant states the claimed speeds for each mode goes beyond mere optimization and is part of a broader coordinated architecture for achieving high speed under demanding torque conditions.
The combination of Kuroyanagi and Suda teaches the claimed modes (see claim 13-15 above) and elements. The speeds achieved by those taught elements are not specified for each mode. However, one having ordinary skill in the art can routinely optimize the speeds (i.e. by using different gear ratios or different motor speed inputs for example) for each mode to prevent overheating or damage in each mode.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-5, 12 and 16 of Li in view of Zhao (bullet II), have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 9-11 of Li in view of Zhao and Xu (bullet V), have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for relevant art
USPGP 2023001959# of Li et al. also teaches maximum rotational speed of the working head is greater than or equal to 2800 rpm (para 0069)
USPGP# 20210078145 of Araki also teaches detection element as claimed
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights