An analysis of patents related to oscillating multi-tools and their … · 2020. 3. 6. · An oscillating multi-tool (“oscillating tool”) is a hand-held power tool that rapidly

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


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


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


• 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


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

https://fein.com/en_us/multi-tools/history/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4920702A/

5


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


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)

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gear/a28359/megabrands-tools-graphic/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gear/a28359/megabrands-tools-graphic/

https://toolguyd.com/tool-brands-corporate-affiliations/

7


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


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/

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_946.pdf

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_946.pdf

https://www.patsnap.com/

9


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/

http://openrefine.org/

10


▪ 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


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


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


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


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


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.

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_rio_13/wipo_ip_rio_13_www_17.pdf

https://ibb.co/vq9cB7G

16


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


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


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


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


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


C & E FEIN 1272 60 21.2



EP2143531B1 Accessory Connection 88

EP2208576B2 Grinding or Polishing 87

HILTI 1220 33 37.0

US7036703 Control Systems & Sensors 234

US6587184 Control Systems & Sensors 136


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


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


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


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


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


• 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.