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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 6/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener (US 2017/0271949 A1) in view of Mergener ‘226 (US 2014/0028226 A1) and Wang (CN 102710112 A). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Wang refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 1, Mergener discloses a power tool (100 – Fig. 3A) comprising: a motor (126 – Fig. 3A); an inverter (124 – Fig. 3A) that drives the motor (para. 0005 and see Fig. 2; the FETS function); a sensor (the one or more sensors to monitor temperature, para. 0037) configured to sense a variable indicative of a motor temperature of the motor (para. 0037); a trigger (112 – Fig. 3A); a power source (122 – Fig. 2); and a controller (130 – Fig. 2) in communication with the inverter, the sensor, the trigger, and the power source (see Fig. 2), the controller configured to: apply power from the power source to the inverter to drive the motor at an effort level based the travel travel of the trigger when the trigger is depressed (para. 0004, lines 10-18); and provide a protective function at a variety of temperature thresholds (para. 0037).
However, Mergener does not expressly disclose that the controller is configured to apply power from the power source to the inverter to drive the motor at a requested effort level based on an amount of travel of the trigger when the trigger is depressed.
Mergener ‘226 discloses a similar power tool (100 – Fig. 1A) comprising a trigger (740 – Fig. 3) and a controller (700 – Fig. 3), wherein the controller is configured to apply power from a power source (the battery pack, para. 0054 received by 715 – Fig. 3) to an inverter (745 – Fig. 3) to drive a motor (600 – Fig. 3) at a requested effort level based on an amount of travel of the trigger when the trigger is depressed (para. 0055). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Mergener ‘226, would have recognized that configuring the controller to drive the motor based on an amount of travel of the trigger provides the benefit of giving a user more control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the controller of Mergener to apply power from the power source to the inverter to drive the motor at a requested effort level based on an amount of travel of the trigger when the trigger is depressed as taught by Mergener ‘226 in order to provide the benefit of giving a user more control.
However, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 does not expressly disclose how the protective function is provided.
Wang discloses an algorithm for providing a protective function of a motor comprising reducing a requested effort level to an inverter when the motor temperature reaches a first temperature (para. 0004), and shut down the motor when the motor temperature reaches a second temperature threshold (para. 0004) in order to prevent the inverter from overheating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have implemented the protective function of Mergener by reducing the requested effort level to the inverter when the motor temperature reaches a first temperature threshold, and shut down the motor when the motor temperature reaches a second temperature threshold as taught by Wang in order to prevent the inverter from overheating.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites subject matter similar to the subject matter of claim 1, hence it is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener (US 2017/0271949 A1) in view of Mergener ‘226 (US 2014/0028226 A1), Wang (CN 102710112 A), and Sauer (US 2015/0022133 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, does not expressly disclose the type and location of the temperature sensor.
Sauer discloses a temperature sensor for an electric motor, wherein the sensor comprises a thermistor located on a coil of the motor (para. 0005) and a controller (the evaluation electronics, para. 0007) is configured to determine motor temperature based on input from the sensor (para. 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have implemented the temperature sensor of Mergener as taught by Sauer since Mergener is silent with regard as to how the sensor is implemented and Sauer teaches a known solution.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites subject matter similar to the subject matter of claim 7, hence it is being rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener (US 2017/0271949 A1) in view of Mergener ‘226 (US 2014/0028226 A1), Wang (CN 102710112 A), and Bouchet (US 2025/0070701 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, does not expressly disclose how the controller is configured to reduce the requested effort level.
Bouchet discloses an electric motor and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to reduce the effort level of the motor using a proportional-integral loop (para. 0055) in order to compensate for flux and motor resistance values whose values change in temperature and production with respect to the intended value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have reduced the requested effort level of Mergener using a proportional-integral control loop as taught by Bouchet in order to compensate for flux and motor resistance values whose values change in temperature and production with respect to the intended value.
Regarding claim 9, Mergener, Mergener ‘226, Wang, and Bouchet further teach the proportional-integral control loop uses motor current as an input variable (para. 0055, Bouchet).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recited subject matter similar to the subject matter of claim 8, hence it is being rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener (US 2017/0271949 A1) in view of Mergener ‘226 (US 2014/0028226 A1), Wang (CN 102710112 A) and Amey (US 6291958 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226 and Wang, does not expressly disclose how the controller is configured to reduce the requested effort level.
Amey discloses an electric motor and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to reduce the effort level of the motor using a proportional-integral loop (col. 3, lines 10-16) in order to prevent the temperature from rising past a predetermined limit (col. 2, lines 51-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have reduced the requested effort level of the modified Mergener using a proportional-integral control loop as taught by Amey since the modified Mergener is silent with respect to the control and Amey provides a known solution.
Regarding claim 10, Mergener, as modified by Mergener ‘226, Wang, and Amey further teaches the proportional-integral control loop uses motor temperature as an input variable (col. 3, lines 10-16, Amey).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recited subject matter similar to the subject matter recited in claim 8, hence it is being rejected based on the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 12-17 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, none of the reference teach that requested effort level is maintained if the requested effort level stays below a minimum effort level. Regarding claims 5 and 17, none of the references teach determining the motor temperature by calculating a thermal model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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 at 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
3/13/2026