an analysis of patents related to oscillating multi-tools and their … · 2020. 3. 6. · an...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Aug 2019
An analysis of patents related to oscillating multi-tools and their accessories.
PREPARED BY
MARK MAGAS
DIRECTOR, CASCADES VENTURES
1
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
1 CONTENTS
1 Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
3 Technology Background ............................................................................................................ 4
4 Justifications for Creating this Report ...................................................................................... 5
5 Associated Economics ............................................................................................................... 6
6 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 8
6.1 Search Strategy .................................................................................................................. 8
6.2 Data Processing ................................................................................................................. 8
6.3 Analysis or Task Methods Used ....................................................................................... 10
6.4 Issues and Limitations ..................................................................................................... 11
7 Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12
7.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 12
7.2 Chronological Patenting Activity ..................................................................................... 12
7.3 Technology Categories .................................................................................................... 13
7.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 13
7.3.2 Spatial Concept Map ............................................................................................... 15
7.4 Top Assignees .................................................................................................................. 16
7.5 Geographical Distribution ............................................................................................... 18
7.6 Citations ........................................................................................................................... 19
7.7 Top Documents ............................................................................................................... 21
8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 24
2
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An oscillating multi-tool (“oscillating tool”) is a hand-held power tool that rapidly vibrates
an accessory for cutting, grinding, sanding, or other uses. Oscillating tools represent a small but
growing portion of the $36 Billion power tools market. The oscillating tool market was initially
dominated by Fein who invented the modern oscillating technology in 1986. After Fein’s patent
expired in 2007, many manufacturers rushed to produce their own oscillating tools. But a
problem emerged—each manufacturer designed their products so that only their accessories
could fit on their own devices.
Cherif Morcos recognized this problem and obtained a patent portfolio (the “Morcos
Patents”) claiming a universal arbor (connector) for an accessory to an oscillating tool device that
allowed the accessory to connect to any manufacturer’s device. Cascades Ventures has been
retained to broker the sale of the Morcos Patents. In order to effectively broker these patents,
general knowledge about the competitive landscape in the oscillating tool market is required.
This patent landscape report generated many useful insights about patenting activity in
the oscillating tool area. Overall, the market is highly concentrated with several large companies.
Bosch is by far the dominant player in this market, owning 29.3% of the patent families in the
area. Black & Decker and C & E Fein are two other top competitors, while Positec, Hilti, Chervon,
Makita, Metabo, and Techtronic represent a third tier of competitors.
Particular emphasis was placed on patents in the Accessory Connection category to assist
with brokering the sale of the Morcos patents. Accessory Connection represented the second
most popular category and saw a surge in activity starting in 2010, occurring just a few years after
the expiration of Fein’s patent. Because the Morcos Patents claim priority to early 2010, they
predate much of the patenting activity in the area and probably have a strong validity position.
Makita, Hilti, Techtronic, and Metabo have only a small number of patents in the Accessory
Connection category, and therefore would probably be the best candidates to acquire the
Morcos patents to gain protection in this area. Additionally, a family of patents covering Bosch
and Fein’s jointly developed Starlock technology was located and determined to be highly
valuable. Further analysis should explore this technology in more detail to learn the effectiveness
of the Starlock design and to see if continuing patents in the Morcos family could be generated
that read on the Starlock design.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
• Bosch has a dominant patent position in the oscillating tool market, followed
Black & Decker and C & E Fein.
3
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
• The Morcos patents have strong validity position with its early priority date
compared to other Accessory Connection patents.
• Makita, Hilti, Techtronic, and Metabo have weak protection in the Accessory
Connection category and would benefit most from acquiring the Morcos
patents.
4
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
3 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
An oscillating multi-tool (“oscillating tool”) is a type of hand-held power tool that moves
an attached tool in a rapid, side-to-side movement. The oscillation is typically very slight (~3
degrees) and very fast (~20,000 strokes/minute). A variety of tools can be used with oscillating
tools, allowing it to perform tasks such as cutting, scraping, sanding, and rasping. These tools can
be powered with a battery pack or with an electrical cable that plugs into an outlet.
Fein invented the modern oscillating tool technology in 1986 with its portable Fein
Sander1 and soon after obtained patent protection.2 By 1995, Fein released its Fein MultiMaster
tool that could use a variety of tool attachments. After Fein’s patent expired around 2007, other
manufacturers released their own proprietary versions of the oscillating tool, each with
distinctive drive flanges. Correspondingly, each manufacturer only sold attachments that fit their
own tools.
1 https://fein.com/en_us/multi-tools/history/ 2 Fein filed for US Patent Number 4,920,702 in 1987. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4920702A/
Figure 1: Examples of Oscillating Tool Applications and Accessory Tools
5
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
4 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CREATING THIS REPORT
Cascades Ventures is brokering the sale or license of a small patent portfolio covering a
universal arbor technology that allows any oscillating tool accessory to connect to any oscillating
tool made by the major tool manufacturers. The portfolio is owned and invented by Cherif
Morcos, a former contractor from Quebec, Canada, and will hereafter be referred to as the
“Morcos Patents.” The following assets are included in the portfolio:
• US 10,245,744 (patented)
• US 20190168404 (pending application)
• One additional unpublished design application
The main purpose of this report is to gain a better understanding of the technological
landscape of the oscillating tool industry, as well as current positions and possible motivations of
different companies in the area. With this aim, the report will explore the following questions:
(1) What are the most important recent technological developments related to oscillating multi-
tools, (2) how important are the Morcos Patents compared to the other recent advances, (3)
what companies have significant patent protection in this area, and (4) which companies would
be most likely to benefit from acquiring the Morcos Patents.
6
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
5 ASSOCIATED ECONOMICS
The global power tools market is very large at over $36 Billion and is expected to reach
$46.5 Billion by 2025 with a compound annual growth rate of 5.1%.3 The power tools market is
highly concentrated where most tool brands are owned by a handful of large holding companies.
Figure 2: Tool Brands Corporate Affiliations4
3 https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gear/a28359/megabrands-tools-graphic/ (2017) 4 https://toolguyd.com/tool-brands-corporate-affiliations/ (2019)
7
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Many of the major tool brands offer an oscillating tool product, including:
• Bosch
• Craftsman (Black & Decker)
• Dremel (Bosch)
• Fein
• Makita
• Mastercraft
• Milwaukee (Techtronic)
• Rigid (Emerson)
• Ryobi (Techtronic)
• Skil (Chervon)
• Rockwell (Positec)
• Metabo
• Festool
Oscillating tools represent a small, but growing sector of the power tools market. Based
on the global power tools market size of $36 Billion, oscillating tools can be estimated to account
for at least $1 Billion based on their relative importance to other types of tools.5
5 This is just an estimate.
8
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
6 METHODOLOGY
A patent landscape report (PLR) provides a comprehensive analysis of patent documents
in a specific technological area. A PLR can have global coverage or it can be restricted to a specific
geographical area. Preparing a PLR involves a series of steps, including (1) developing a search
strategy and performing the search, (2) processing the data to make it usable, (3) deciding which
methods of analysis will be used, and (4) recognizing any potential issues and limitations.6
6.1 SEARCH STRATEGY The PatSnap7 database was used to conduct the patent search. The scope of the project
is limited to hand-held oscillating multi-tool devices that are commonly used in construction,
home repair, or manufacturing industries, as well as various attachments that can work with the
tools (e.g., blades, rasps, sanders, scrapers). Fixed, large machines with oscillating capabilities
(i.e., not hand-held tools) and oscillating tools intended for surgical or other medical uses are
outside the scope of this project.
Even though the Morcos Patents only cover the United States market, oscillating tools
and their accessories are often manufactured, sold, or used in foreign markets, so understanding
the patent landscape globally is important. The report will focus on patents that were applied for
within the last 20 years.
The following search query was used to generate an initial dataset of 1,876 families:
(TAC:(oscill* $W3 tool) OR (UPC:D8 AND oscill*) OR (IPC:B25F AND oscill*)) AND
PRIORITY_DATE:[19990721 TO 20190701] NOT TAC:(surgical OR medical OR toothbrush OR
microorganism)
6.2 DATA PROCESSING Three important data processing steps were performed: family reduction, assignee
cleanup, and categorization. The “simple” family reduction method was used to group related
patents. Importantly, simple families group related patents that share the exact same priority
dates. This includes continuations, divisionals, and foreign filings. Unlike other family method
reduction techniques such as INPADOC and extended families, simple families do not include
continuation-in-part applications that add new subject matter and do not extend to other
applications that are judged to have the same scope. PatSnap provided an automatic method to
group results using simple families.
6 WIPO Guidelines for Preparing Patent Landscape Reports. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/ en/wipo_pub_946.pdf
7 https://www.patsnap.com/
9
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Next, assignee cleanup was performed. Even though PatSnap provided standardized
assignee names, there were still many spelling variations and known corporate groupings that
required fixing. First, OpenRefine8 software was used to provide automatic clustering of similar
assignee names. This technique was effective in eliminating slight variations in company names
by recognizing (A) common company abbreviations like “CO,” “LTD,” and “CORP”, (B) slight type
errors where, for example, a period is misplaced, and (C) similarly worded company names such
as “ROBERT BOSCH GMBH” and “ROBERT BOSCH TOOL.” Second, manual fixes were performed
by scanning the assignee table to fix the remaining assignee names. There were some obvious
assignee names that were not picked up by OpenRefine such as “CHERVON HK” and “NANJING
CHERVON” and “CHEVRON HK.” Finally, assignees were grouped under their corporate parents
where appropriate. Two of the more important changes with corporate parents included
grouping “MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION” and “IMPERIAL BLADES” under
“TECHTRNOIC” and grouping “HITACHI,” “HITACHI KOKI,” “HITATCHI LIGHTING,” “HITATCHI
MAXELL,” “KOKI HOLDINGS CO LTD,” and “METABOWORKE” under “METABO.”
Lastly, each of the search results was manually categorized according to custom
categories that seemed to fit the data well. The categories generally related to either mechanical
or electrical inventions, and include:
• MECHANICAL:
o Vibration Damping
▪ General Purpose: The rapid oscillation of accessory tools causes
significant vibration issues with the device.
▪ Featured Inventions: Vibration reduction through the use of
improved handles, oscillating drives, housing design, and other
mechanical components.
o Accessory Connection
▪ General Purpose: Connecting the various accessory tools to the
drive shaft of the oscillating tool body is a critical component of
these tools. Without a good connection, the tools may suffer
increased wear and operate with reduced oscillating strength.
▪ Featured Inventions: Improved clamping mechanisms for securing
the accessory tools to the devices, tool release mechanisms, and
various arbor designs.
• The Morcos patents fall in this category.
o Grinding or Polishing
▪ General Purpose: Along with Cutting, Grinding or Polishing is one
of two major applications for oscillating tools.
8 http://openrefine.org/
10
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
▪ Featured Inventions: Specific designs of accessory tools that are
used to smooth or break down rough surfaces.
o Cutting
▪ General Purpose: Along with Grinding or Polishing, Cutting is one
of two major applications for oscillating tools.
▪ Featured Inventions: Blades, saws, and cut depth limiters.
o Body Design
▪ Ornamental design patents for the entire oscillating tool product.
o Accessory Design
▪ Ornamental design patents for the accessory tools.
o Other Mechanical Components
▪ All other mechanical inventions grouped here.
• ELECTRICAL:
o Control Systems & Sensors
▪ General Purpose: Power tools are increasingly using sensors and
electrical circuits to control and monitor tool performance. Any
patents related to controlling operation typically use sensors to
detect operating conditions.
▪ Featured Inventions: Safety measures, on/off control, positioning.
o Electric Power
▪ General Purpose: Cordless versions of the oscillating tool are
preferable because of improved mobility and ease-of-use.
▪ Featured Inventions: Electric motor and battery related inventions.
o Other Electrical Components
▪ All other electrical inventions grouped here.
During the categorization process, over 1,074 of 1,876 of the initial search results were
deemed irrelevant, demonstrating a relatively poor precision of the initial search. Therefore,
these irrelevant results were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a substantially lower
number of 802 families in the result set (but with a very high precision).
6.3 ANALYSIS OR TASK METHODS USED This PLR uses the following statistical analyses and visualizations to interpret the data:
• List generation
• Classification
• Spatial concept maps
• Citation network analysis
11
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
6.4 ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS One potential issue to note is the year field which is used throughout the analyses. For this
patent landscape report, the priority year field was chosen because it aligns well with the simple
family reduction method where all applications sharing the same priority dates are grouped. The
priority year is useful because the inventive activity actually occurred near the time of the first
application. However, this choice precludes information about when newer applications were
filed, which could highlight when significant investments were made in building a patent family.
Another potential issue is with the choice of using the simple family reduction method.
Performing family reduction in any way can mask the investment that a company puts into
building its patent portfolio. While the simple family method does not show investments related
to continuing, divisional, or foreign counterparts, these filings are not as important and probably
represent less investment compared to filings with new subject matter that represent truly new
inventive activity.
12
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
7 ANALYSIS
7.1 OVERVIEW This patent landscape report (PLR) identified over 1,800 simple patent families, of which
802 families representing 4,931 individual patent applications (shown in Figure 3 below) were
deemed to be highly relevant to oscillating tools. Among the 802 simple families, 83% were not
part of a larger INPADOC family. In the subsequent statistical analyses, when the count of family
is presented, it refers to the count of simple families.
Figure 3: Family Size Distribution Histogram
As seen in Figure 3, the most common number of applications in a family is 2 and 84.2%
of families have less than 10 applications. Four families had over 40 applications, with the highest
at 57. The three largest families belong to Black & Decker, with two of these families relating to
control systems & sensors and the third relating to vibration damping.
7.2 CHRONOLOGICAL PATENTING ACTIVITY The chronological patenting activity shown in Figure 4 shows generally increasing filings
between 2000-2010 and then a dramatic increase between 2011-2013 before falling back to
previous levels in recent years. The large surge between 2007-2012 is likely due to the expiration
of Fein’s patent covering the original modern oscillating tool in 2007, which prompted many of
the other major tool manufacturers to enter the market and begin innovating.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > 15
Co
un
t
Size of Patent Family (Count of Applications)
Family Size Distribution Histogram
13
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Figure 4: Chronological Patenting Activity
Note that applications are typically not published until 18 months after filing, so there are
likely more applications for these years. Additionally, 2019 represents only a partial year. The red
overlay will signal this disclaimer in all of the charts that follow where this is an issue.
7.3 TECHNOLOGY CATEGORIES
7.3.1 Overview
As discussed in section 6.2, each of the families were categorized into one of ten distinct
categories. The distribution of families for each category is shown in Figure 5. Most inventions
are related to mechanical features, with Vibration Damping at 139 and Accessory Connection at
129 being the most popular specific categories (i.e., excluding the Other categories). For
inventions related to electrical features, Control Systems & Sensors had by far the most at 110.
Category Family Count
Vibration Damping 139
Other Mechanical Components 132
Accessory Connection 129
Control Systems & Sensors 110
Cutting 106
Grinding or Polishing 104
Electric Power 36
Body Design 20
Other Electrical Components 15
Accessory Design 11
Figure 5: Families by Technology Category
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
Pat
ent
Fam
ilies
Priority Year
Number of Patent Families by Priority Year
**In
com
ple
te D
ata*
*
14
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Looking at the families by comparing technology category and priority year, as shown in
Figure 6: Families by Technology Category and Priority YearFigure 6, produces some useful
insights. The Accessory Connection category had a large surge in interest starting in 2010. This
surge happened a few years after all the major tool manufacturers entered the market after
Fein’s patent expired. Because many of the tool manufacturers released oscillating devices with
distinct drive flanges, they could only work with their own proprietary accessory tools.
Predictably, many of the Accessory Connection applications attempt to solve this problem by
allowing tools to working with the oscillating devices of multiple manufacturers.
Figure 6: Families by Technology Category and Priority Year
The timing of this uptick in Accessory Connection patents also provides insight on the
validity strength of the Morcos patents. Because the Morcos Patents have a priority date of early
2010, it was filed before most other inventions in this category. This suggests there may be a
strong case for validity because little prior art existed in the area.
Another useful insight from Figure 6 is that while Grinding or Polishing was a major focus
of the early 2000’s, Cutting has been more important in the last decade. Additionally, the Control
Systems & Sensors category has been more popular in recent years, correlating with the
increasing importance of digital technology in all areas of life.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Nu
mb
er o
f Fa
mili
es
Priority Year
Families by Technology Category and Priority Year
Vibration Damping Other Mechanical Components Accessory Connection
Control Systems & Sensors Cutting Grinding or Polishing
Electric Power Body Design Other Electrical Components
Accessory Design
**In
com
ple
te D
ata*
*
15
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
7.3.2 Spatial Concept Map
The technologies being innovated with oscillating tools often involve modular
components that have little interaction with the other inventions. As seen in the spatial concept
map in Figure 7, many of the technologies are shown as largely isolated clusters with substantial
white space in between. Although white space does indicate that two clusters are significantly
different, it does not necessarily indicate that there is room to innovate in the area.9
Figure 7: Spatial Concept Map10
9 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_rio_13/wipo_ip_rio_13_www_17.pdf 10 A larger version of this image can be seen at https://ibb.co/vq9cB7G.
16
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
7.4 TOP ASSIGNEES A few important insights are demonstrated by Figure 8 which shows a count of the
number of families held by the top assignees. First, Bosch is by far the most dominant company
in this space, owning 29.3% of all identified families. Second, the next tier of top assignees
includes Black & Decker at 64 and Fein at 58. In total, the top three assignees of Bosch, Black &
Decker, and Fein account for 44.5% of the 802 total families, while the group including the rest
of the top nine assignees accounts for 63.5% of the total. This reinforcing the view that the power
tool industry is a highly concentrated market.
Current Assignee Family Count
BOSCH 235
BLACK & DECKER 64
C & E FEIN 58
POSITEC 33
HILTI 33
CHERVON 26
MAKITA 22
METABO 21
TECHTRONIC 17 Figure 8: Family Count of Top Assignees
Viewing the top assignees by priority year in Figure 9 shows several interesting trends, as
shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Bosch has clearly been the most active company i
n this area. They showed a significant increase in activity starting in 2004, perhaps sensing that
Fein’s patent covering the original modern oscillating tool would soon expire and that they had
an opportunity to innovate. Black & Decker and C&E Fein have exhibited relatively consistent
activity throughout the last two decades, while Positec, Hilti, Chervon, Makita, and Metabo’s
activity began primarily after 2008, aligning with the expiration of Fein’s patent. In the most
recent years, Positec and Makita comprised a more significant share of inventive activity,
although overall activity has declined.
17
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Figure 9: Top Assignees by Priority Year
Examining top assignees by category in Figure 10 also reveals some useful insights. First,
Bosch dominates the Other Mechanical Components category, suggesting that they are obtaining
patents protection on less important features that no one else is focusing on. Second, several of
the top assignees lack patent coverage in key areas. Focusing on the Accessory Connection
category, Makita and Hilti have barely any patents in this area, while Techtronic and Metabo have
only a small number. These companies would probably be the best candidates to acquire the
Morcos patents to gain protection in this area.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Nu
mb
er o
f Fa
mili
es
Priority Year
Top Assignees by Priority Year
BOSCH BLACK & DECKER C & E FEIN POSITEC HILTI CHERVON MAKITA METABO TECHTRONIC
**In
com
ple
te D
ata*
*
18
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Figure 10: Top Assignees by Technology Category
7.5 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION The country overview analysis in Figure 11 shows that patent families related to oscillating
tools generally have widespread international coverage across the major markets (United States,
Europe, China). Almost 68% of families have coverage in more than one country, with an average
of 3 national entries per family. In particular, Germany has an unusually high count because that
is where Bosch is headquartered.
Figure 11: Country Coverage of Families
TECHTRONICMAKITA
HILTIC & E FEIN
BOSCH
0102030405060
Top Assignees by Technology Category
TECHTRONIC METABO MAKITA CHERVON HILTI POSITEC C & E FEIN BLACK & DECKER BOSCH
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
US DE CN EP WO JP GB AU CA RU AT FR ES
Country Coverage of Families
Application Grant
19
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Figure 12 shows a relatively similar balance with patent filings in specific technology
categories between the different countries. This is significant because it indicates that the
different technology categories hold no special significance in the different countries.
Figure 12: Country Coverage of Technology Categories
7.6 CITATIONS The citation data showing forward citations provides useful context to the overall family
count information discussed above. Figure 13 shows the top cited families for the five assignees
with the most overall citations. Aside from simply highlighting the most cited families, one
interesting insight shown by this table is that, compared to the other top assignees, Bosch’s
patents have substantially less citations relative to the total number of patent families they have,
with 13.8 cites per family. On the other end, Hilti has the most cites per family at 37, while Black
& Decker, 30.9, Makita, 26.9, and C&E Fein, 21.2, are also well above Bosch’s figure. Having more
assignees per family suggests that, on average, the families of these other assignees might be
more valuable than families of Bosch. Also of note, Positec, which had the fourth most patent
families with 33, dropped to eight in citing patents with 160 citations (cites per family of only 4.8,
not shown in the table). Like Bosch, this also suggests that their families on average may have
lower value relative to the other assignees.
Assignee Category Cited By Total Families Cites / Family
BOSCH 3233 235 13.8
US9272435 Accessory Connection 222
EP1943061B1 Control Systems & Sensors 221
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
US DE CN EP WO JP GB AU CA RU AT FR ES
Country Coverage of Technology Categories
Accessory Connection Accessory Design Body Design
Control Systems & Sensors Cutting Electric Power
Grinding or Polishing Other Electrical Components Other Mechanical Components
Vibration Damping
20
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
GB2486986B Vibration Reduction 150
US6863479 Vibration Reduction 104
BLACK & DECKER 1975 64 30.9
EP1432553A2 Control Systems & Sensors 307
US7719234 Electric Power 216
DE202004021825U1 Vibration Reduction 207
EP2375542B1 Control Systems & Sensors 115
C & E FEIN 1272 60 21.2
US6796888 Accessory Connection 195
US8585469 Accessory Connection 90
EP2143531B1 Accessory Connection 88
EP2208576B2 Grinding or Polishing 87
HILTI 1220 33 37.0
US7036703 Control Systems & Sensors 234
US6587184 Control Systems & Sensors 136
EP1163974B2 Control Systems & Sensors 118
US6520269 Other Mechanical 94
MAKITA 591 22 26.9
US20180076639A1 Electric Power 347
US10144110 Grinding or Polishing 46
EP2090393B1 Cutting 38
JP6326480B2 Electric Power 32
Figure 13: Top Cited Document by the Top Cited Assignees
Looking at the categories of these top cited families reveals some additional insights.
Bosch has the top cited vibration reduction families, Makita has strong families in electric power,
all but one of Fein’s top cited families are in accessory connection, while Hilti and Black & Decker
has the most top families in the control systems & sensors category.
Figure 14 below shows citation network connections between top assignees and was
generated using Orbit Intelligence. Nearly all of the assignees cite to Bosch, which is
understandable because of its dominant share of patent families in the topic area. For the other
top assignees, both Black & Decker and C&E Fein share substantial two-way connections to
Bosch. In addition, there are minor connections between each of the three top assignees and
many of the smaller assignees. There does not appear to be any significant chains of citations
between the companies. Instead, the high interconnectedness likely signifies substantial overlap
in research.
21
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Figure 14: Citation Network
7.7 TOP DOCUMENTS Each family was rated according to an algorithm that considered whether the patent was
granted, the quality of country coverage, the quality of citations, and the patent term remaining.
This rating identified four top documents in the Accessory Connection category: US 10,052,695,
US 9,272,435, US 8,585,469, and US 8,403,341. Next, a file wrapper analysis was performed for
each family to measure certain value indicators. Of these four patents, the ‘695 family appears
to have the most value and was worth examining further. A summary of the value indicators is
provided in Figure 15.
22
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
Avg. / Patent Max Min Total Value Indication
Application Status - - - - (Value ↑ ↑)
Months to Issue 30 30 30 - (Value ↔)
Number of
Patents Open for
Prosecution
- - - 1 (Value ↑)
Foreign Filing - - - - (Value ↑ ↑ ↑)
Patent Term
Adjustments
0 0 0 - (Value ↔)
IDSs Submitted by
Applicant
14 14 14 14 (Value ↑)
Form 892s
Submitted by
Examiner
2 1 2 2 (Value ↑)
Rejections 1 1 1 1 (Value ↑)
RCEs 0 0 0 0 (Value ↑)
BPAIs 0 0 0 0 (Value ↑)
Overall Value
(Value ↑ ↑ ↑)
Figure 15: File Wrapper Analysis of US 10,052,695
The ‘695 family was assigned to both Bosch and C&E Fein and appears to have been
generated from a joint development effort. The technology covers Bosch’s Starlock design for
accessory tools. This tool design is described as allowing for (1) easy attachment
connection/disconnection to the oscillating tool, (2) transmission of the full force from the
oscillating drive to the attachment tool, and (3) still being generally adaptable to work with other
companies’ oscillating tools.
From the file wrapper analysis, the ‘695 family checks nearly all the boxes of what to look
for in file wrapper metrics. Having a granted patent is critical, a 30 month time between filing
and issue does not seem overly rushed in a way that would suggest potential issues with the
examination, the file wrapper shows a PCT filing indicating international coverage (which there
is), and there were a very high number of information disclosure statements and 892 forms filed
during the examination, suggesting a very thorough examination. Even with all the disclosures,
23
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
the patent was granted after only one rejection. Overall, after reviewing the patent specification
in more detail, I think this patent presents a credible alternative to the Morcos Patents. Because
the Morcos Patents includes an active continuation, it would be worthwhile to explore whether
the specification might support claims that could cover the Starlock technology.
24
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
8 CONCLUSIONS
This patent landscape report generated many useful insights about patenting activity in
the oscillating tool area. Particular emphasis was placed on the Accessory Connection category
to assist with brokering the sale of the Morcos patents, which teach a universal arbor design that
allows any accessory tool to connect to any manufacturer’s oscillating device. See below a
summary of the main conclusions with the most important emphasized in bold text.
• Bosch is by far the dominant assignee in this area, owning 235 patents that represents
29.3% of the families considered in this report.
• After Bosch, Black & Decker and C&E Fein are the two other top assignees, with 64 and
60 families, respectively.
• Patent families related to oscillating tool generally fall in mechanical or electrical
categories. The most popular specific categories (excluding the “other” categories) are
Vibration Reduction, Accessory Connection, and Control Systems & Sensors, ranked in
that order. Therefore, the Accessory Connection category represents a very significant
focus among all oscillating tool inventions.
• The number of patent families applied for generally increased between 2000-2010 but
showed a dramatic increase between 2007-2012 before falling back to previous levels in
recent years. The large surge is likely due to the expiration of Bosch’s patent covering the
original oscillating tool in 2009, which prompted many of the other major tool
manufacturers to enter the market.
• While Grinding or Polishing was a major focus of the early 2000’s, Cutting has been more
important in the last decade.
• The Accessory Connection category gained significant attention starting in 2010, which
aligns with the timing of all the major tool manufacturers entering the market after
Bosch’s patent expired. With a priority date to early 2010, the Morcos Patents probably
have a strong position on validity.
• The Control Systems & Sensors category has been more popular in recent years,
correlating with the increasing importance of digital technology in all areas of life.
• Patent families related to oscillating tools generally have widespread international
coverage across the major markets (United States, Europe, China).
• Makita, Hilti, Techtronic, and Metabo have only a small number of patents in the
Accessory Connection category. These companies would probably be the best
candidates to acquire the Morcos patents to gain protection in this area.
• There is a relatively similar balance with patent filings in specific technology categories
between the different countries.
• Compared to the other top assignees, Bosch’s patents have substantially less citations
relative to the total number of patent families they own, suggesting they are less valuable
patents than normal.
25
Copyright © 2019 Cascades Ventures
• Bosch has the top cited vibration reduction families, Makita has strong families in electric
power, all but one of Fein’s top cited families are in accessory connection, while Hilti and
Black & Decker has the most top families in the control systems & sensors category.
• Nearly all of the assignees cite to Bosch, which is understandable because of its dominant
share of patent families in the topic area. For the other top assignees, both Black & Decker
and C&E Fein share substantial two-way connections to Bosch. In addition, there are
minor connections between each of the three top assignees and many of the smaller
assignees. There does not appear to be any significant chains of citations between the
companies. Instead, the high interconnectedness likely signifies substantial overlap in
research.
• Four top patent families in the Accessory Connection category were identified using
document analysis techniques. But after performing file-wrapper analysis and a quick
review of the specification and claims, the ‘695 family jointly developed by Bosch and
Fein seemed like the most valuable family of the group. The ‘695 family teaches a
Starlock design which is an alternative to the Morcos Patents and must be evaluated in
more detail.
Future analysis can expand upon this study by exploring more top documents to see if
there are any other competing arbor designs or alternative technologies for Accessory
Connections.