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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 11/03/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 recite first, second, third, maximum, minimum, and intermediate "motor power," while further reciting that such motor power is determined using pulse-width modulation values, RPM setpoints, motor conduction angle, motor phase angle, and current values. It is unclear whether the recited “motor power” refers to electrical power, mechanical output power, torque, motor current, PWM duty cycle, or another operating parameter. Thereby, the boundaries of the claimed invention are not clear, rendering the claims indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mueckl et al. (2021/0394344).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Mueckl discloses an impact tool comprising: a housing (Fig. 2); a trigger (212); a motor (214) within the housing, the motor including a rotor and a stator (pars. 3 and 5), the rotor coupled to a motor shaft (par. 5); an impact mechanism including a hammer (1205) coupled to the motor shaft and an anvil (1210) configured to receive impacts from the hammer; an output drive device (210) coupled to the anvil and configured to rotate; and an electronic controller including a memory and an electronic processor (Fig. 3A), the electronic controller configured to: detect a pull of the trigger (par. 36; trigger switch 213), control the motor at a first motor power in response to the pull of the trigger (par. 36), detect a first impact of the impact mechanism, store a count of the impact of the impact mechanism in the memory, control the motor at a second motor power in response to the impact of the impact mechanism; detect a second impact of the impact mechanism, increment the count of the impact; compare the count of the impact to an impact threshold, control the motor at a third motor power in response to the count of the impact being less than the impact threshold, the third motor power being greater than the second motor power; and stop the motor in response to the count of the impact being greater than or equal to the impact threshold (pars. 79, 91-99; Figs. 17-18).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Mueckl discloses wherein at least one of the first motor power, the second motor power and the third motor power are determined by the electronic processor using at least one selected from the group consisting of a pulse-width modulation value (pars. 39-40) and a revolutions per minute setpoint (par. 65).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, it is deemed that Mueckl’s third motor power is greater than the second motor power by a predetermined value and increasing the motor power value in response to incrementing the count of the impact (since Mueckl shows incrementing the count; Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 8, Mueck discloses wherein the third motor power is calculated by the electronic processor using an algorithm (e.g. ALU; par. 42).
Regarding claim 9, Mueck’s algorithm (e.g. ALU) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a total number of impacts detected by the electronic processor (par. 43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 12 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 2 is allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest that the first motor power is specifically a maximum motor power and that the second motor power is specifically a minimum motor power, as claimed. The cited references generally disclose adjusting or varying motor output but do not teach the claimed relationship between the first and second motor power levels.
Claims 4 and 5 are allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest controlling the motor at the second motor power by lowering the PWM duty cycle in response to detection of the impact mechanism impact (claim 4), using one or more closed-loop speed control target set points (claim 5), as claimed. While PWM is a known technique for controlling electric motors, the cited references do not disclose or suggest using a reduction in PWM duty cycle to implement the claimed second motor power state following impact detection. Therefore, the specific control strategy recited in claims 4 and 5 are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 6 are allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest controlling the motor at the third motor power specifically in response to the impact count being incremented by two. The cited references do not disclose or suggest using a two-impact increment as the triggering criterion for modifying motor power. Therefore, the claimed control strategy is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest determining whether a detected impact timing is within a predetermined range and reducing motor power when the impact timing is outside the predetermined range. This specific impact timing-based motor control strategy is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 14 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest increasing the motor power value by a predetermined amount after every two increments of the impact count, as specifically recited. Although the cited prior art discloses adjusting motor operating parameters in response to impact events, it does not disclose or suggest modifying the motor power value based on a control strategy that increases the motor power after every two increments of the impact count.
Claim 15 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an impact tool having an electronic controller configured to control the motor at a maximum motor power in response to trigger actuation, control the motor at a minimum motor power in response to detection of a first impact, subsequently control the motor at an intermediate motor power that is between the maximum and minimum motor powers while the impact count remains below an impact threshold, and stop the motor when the impact count reaches the impact threshold, as specifically recited. While the cited references disclose varying motor output during operation of an impact tool, they do not teach or suggest the claimed sequence of maximum, minimum, and intermediate motor power control in combination with impact counting and threshold-based motor shutoff.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights