DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/8/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 2 submitted IDS documents have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14:
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “satisfactory engagement of the hammer and anvil” which is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what would be considered “satisfactory” are undefined and unclear to Examiner.
Claims dependent on claims 1, 8, and 14 are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. US 2021/0094158.
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
Kato teaches an impact tool (1) and control method therefor, comprising: a trigger (7); a brushless direct current motor ([0080]) including a motor shaft (21a); an impact mechanism including: a hammer (28) coupled to the motor shaft, and an anvil (29) configured to receive impacts from the hammer; an output drive device including a shaft (see front of 29; [0052]-[0053]) coupled to the anvil and configured to rotate to perform a task; and a controller ([0008]) connected to the brushless direct current motor, the controller configured to: receive an output signal from the trigger ([0082]), and control the brushless direct current motor to operate based on the output signal from the trigger and a predetermined torque/speed demand curve (setting table 90 include points from a speed/duty ratio curve) corresponding to satisfactory engagement of the hammer and the anvil (described in [0106]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 8:
Kato teaches an impact tool (1) comprising: a housing (14); a trigger (7); a motor (21) within the housing, the motor including a motor shaft (21a); an impact mechanism including: a hammer (28) coupled to the motor shaft, and an anvil (29) configured to receive impacts from the hammer, the anvil coupled to an output drive device (see front of 29, [0052]-[0053]), the output drive device configured to rotate; and an electronic controller (56) including a memory (56b) and an electronic processor (56a), the electronic controller configured to: detect a pull of the trigger, control the motor at a first motor power in response to the pull of the trigger ([0082]; see FIG. 6), determine a motor torque for satisfactory engagement of the hammer and anvil ([0261]), and control the motor to operate at the motor torque for satisfactory engagement of the hammer and the anvil (via setting table 90 which includes points from a speed/duty ratio curve; cf. [0106]-[0118], [0257], [0254]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15:
Kato teaches the impact tool of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising: a mode selector (9), wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the predetermined torque/speed demand curve in response to a changing of a mode of the impact tool via the mode selector ([0056]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, as applied above, and further in view of Westerby et al. US 2022/0137147.
Regarding claims 3-4, 10-11, and 16-17:
Kato teaches the impact tool of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a type of a battery pack connected to the impact tool, and to adjust the predetermined torque/speed demand curve based on the type of the battery pack; wherein the controller is further configured to determine an impedance of a battery pack connected to the impact tool, and to adjust the predetermined torque/speed demand curve based on the impedance of the battery pack.
Westerby discloses a related power tool “operable to determine a type of battery pack that is attached to the device” (abstract) and “operable to determine that the battery pack has a high battery pack impedance, and adjust motor control parameters to increase torque delivery when the battery pack has the high battery pack impedance” ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Kato, by configuring the controller to determine a type of a battery pack and an impedance of the battery pack connected to the impact tool, and to adjust the predetermined torque/speed demand curve based on the impedance of the battery pack, as suggested by Westerby, to allow the tool to be adaptable to different battery types.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, as applied above.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18:
Kato teaches the impact tool of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to control the brushless direct current motor using field-oriented control (“FOC”).
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that controllers utilizing FOC are old and well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Kato by using FOC in the controller, since it is well-known to provide smooth and precise control of brushless DC motors in the art.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, as applied above, and further in view of Abbott et al. US 2022/0111502.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19:
Kato teaches the impact tool of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising: a hammer translation sensor configured to detect a movement of the hammer; and an anvil rotation sensor configured to detect a movement of the anvil.
Abbott discloses a related impact tool comprising sensors (126) used to communicate to the controller including a hammer translation sensor configured to detect a movement of the hammer and an anvil rotation sensor configured to detect a movement of the anvil ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Kato by providing a hammer translation sensor configured to detect a movement of the hammer and an anvil rotation sensor configured to detect a movement of the anvil, in order to provide the controller with data to control the tool in multiple ways.
Regarding claims 7 and 20:
Kato teaches the impact tool of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a coefficient of restitution experienced by the hammer.
Abbott discloses a related impact tool describing “anvil position sensor 126a can detect minor changes in the drive angle A1 of the anvil 94 (e.g., less than 5 degrees). The controller 122 may also calculate the amount of torque applied to the workpiece using the drive angle A1, the rebound angle A2, the total drive angle A0, or a combination thereof” and “the controller 122 may alternatively adjust the motor 42 to a higher rotational speed when certain characteristic are met to hold the drive angle A1 or the rebound angle A2 more constant, allowing high amounts of torque to be delivered quickly without over-torqueing the workpiece” ([0065]).
While Abbott does not use the phrase “coefficient of restitution”, since Abbott determines the data required (i.e., A1 and A2) to compute the coefficient of restitution, and uses the data symbolizing the coefficient of restitution to control the motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Kato by similarly controlling the tool by computing the coefficient of restitution (via A1 and A2) and controlling the tool accordingly to “allow high amounts of torque to be delivered quickly without over-torqueing the workpiece”, as suggested by Kato.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular note, see Friedman et al. US 2023/0268866, which similarly discloses controlling a motor for an impact tool using a speed-torque curve ([0144]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights