DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4 line 13 is reads, “the handle hosing portion”. This is deemed to be a typographical error and should read “the handle housing portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-22 and 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claim(s) read, “a housing…, the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side, and the third and fourth sides respectively have widths and external geometries that respectively substantially conform to the internal side walls of the handle housing portion such that a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion and restrict movement of the housing with respect to the handle housing portion.” (Emphasis added). The newly amended subject matter adds several limitations which are not deemed to be supported by the original disclosure.
The original Specification (p. 4 lines 10-14) recites, “the external geometry of the housing 145 can generally conform to the internal geometry of the handle 135. In this manner, the housing 145 can provide structural stability to a part of the tool 100, the handle 135, that has shown in drop tests to fail more often than other parts of the tool 100.” While similar language is used in other locations in the Specification (p. 1 lines 21-22; p. 2 lines 7-8; p. 2 lines 13-14; p. 3 lines 15-16) and Original Claim 1, the language cited above is deemed to be the most detailed account regarding the external features of the housing provided in the original disclosure.
The claim(s) now recite, “the third and fourth sides respectively have widths and external geometries that respectively substantially conform to the internal side walls of the handle housing portion such that a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths”. This language is deemed to contain multiple instances of new matter.
The width of the housing portion is not discussed in the original specification. While the housing is noted as having an “external geometry” that generally conforms to internal geometry of the housing, this property is not attributed to the width of the housing. As such, the cited limitation regarding the width is deemed to comprise new matter.
The concept of the third and fourth sides respectively abutting opposing internal side walls is not provided in the original Specification. In fact, no mention is made of any abutment occurring by both the third and fourth side as claimed. To the extent that the Applicant may argue that abutment of both sides is an inherent property necessary for the housing providing the cited “structural stability” present in the original disclosure, this would also not be persuasive. There exists the possibility of intermediate structures/connections (i.e. not abutment) or of the structural stability being provided by different sides of the housing.
Even still, were it somehow conceded that there was abutment occurring by both the third and fourth side as claimed, this would still not be supportive of the claim language requiring “a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths”. The Specification is silent with respect to the width dimension and its features. The Specification is also silent with regards to abutment of the third and fourth sides. It is further silent as to the extent of any hypothetical abutment. The claim requiring that the abutment of the third and fourth side widths occur along “a majority of the respective widths” is therefore not supported by the original disclosure.
The claim(s) go on to recite, “the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion”. As noted above, the original Specification is silent with regards to any abutment. To the degree that it could be argued that some abutment is inherent, it is not disclosed that both the third and fourth side are the portions providing the abutment. The Specification is also further silent as to the location of such a hypothetical abutment of both the third and fourth sides.
The language regarding the abutments of the third and fourth sides are therefore deemed to comprise new matter. The Office noted that such language would be treated as new matter in the Advisory Action of 31 December 2025. The Applicant has not provided any evidence or rationale for the cited subject matter and the Office maintains the position as put forward in the previous Advisory Action.
The Office will interpret the claim language in view of the original specification. As such, the prior art need only show that “the external geometry of the housing can generally conform to the internal geometry of the handle. In this manner, the housing can provide structural stability to a part of the tool”. Limitations regarding abutments of third and fourth sides, a width substantially conforming to the internal side wide, abutment along a majority of the width and abutment at an intersection of the gripping portion at both the third and fourth side are all deemed to be new matter and will be address as best understood in lieu of the original disclosure.
Regarding claim 28, the claim reads, “the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side and includes a semi-circular recess adapted to matingly receive and abut the screw boss.” (Emphasis added).
The original Specification (p. 5 lines 14-17) recites, “As shown in FIG. 4, the handle 135 can include a curve 165 in the housing 145 and a corresponding screw boss 170 that can fit within the curve 165. In this manner, the curve 165 and the screw boss 170 can be firmly positioned next to one another for ease of assembling the handle 135 with the electrical components 140”.
The claim now requires the abutment of the third side with the screw boss. This is deemed to be new matter. The third side was disclosed as being adapted “fit within the curve 165” and that the screw boss and housing are “firmly positioned next to one another”, but this falls short of supporting abutment as claimed. Even when viewing Figure 4, which is meant to show the screw boss specifically, there appears to be a small but noticeable gap between screw boss 170 and curve 165. The original Specification as a whole is silent with regards to any element specifically abutting another. For these reasons, the cited language is deemed to comprise new matter.
The Office will interpret the claim language in view of the original specification. As such, the prior art need only show that “the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side and includes a semi-circular recess adapted to matingly receive and be next to the screw boss.”
Regarding claims 2-7, 9, 11-14, 16-22, 24-27, and 29-33, are rejected as they all are dependent on claims that contain new matter as detailed above and therefore also have that same new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note: Claims in the rejection below are not being presented in numerical order, but rather are being presented below in an order as defined by how they are dependent on one another.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 16-19, 21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano et al. (JP 2009-196024 A) hereinafter referred to as Iwano in view of Mashiko et al. (US 2014/0158390 A1) hereinafter referred to Mashiko alternatively in further view of Muller et al. (US Patent 9,004,191) hereinafter referred to as Muller and (alternatively) in further view of Wu (CN 206948791 U).
Regarding claim 1, Iwano discloses a tool (1; fig. 1) comprising:
a tool housing (100, 110; paragraph 0012; see annotate figs. 1 and 2 below) including a motor housing portion (100 – portion that contains motor 2) and a handle housing portion (110), wherein the handle housing portion includes a gripping portion (110) extending from the motor housing portion and a power source receiving portion (portion that receives battery pack 20; see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below) at an end opposite the motor housing portion, and the handle housing portion has an internal geometry including internal side walls (see walls of 110 in annotated close up figs. 1 and 2 below) and first and second screw bosses (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below);
a motor (2; paragraph 0012) disposed in the motor housing portion;
a power source (20, 21) adapted to releasably couple to the power source receiving portion (paragraph 0012) and provide power to the motor (paragraph 0013);
a switch (5) operably coupled to the motor (paragraph 0013) and adapted to selectively switch on and off power to the motor based on actuation of a trigger (4; paragraph 0013), wherein the switch is disposed in the handle housing portion proximate to the motor housing portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below);
electrical components (6; alternatively 6, 11 and 12) operably coupled to the power source and the motor (paragraphs 0014 and 0016); and
a housing separate (6a) from the switch (figs. 1-3) and disposed in the handle housing portion between the switch and the power source (figs. 1-2) and is adapted to enclose the electrical components (fig. 3; paragraphs 0014 and 0018), the housing has first, second, third, and fourth sides, wherein the first side (top side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is disposed proximate to the switch, the second side (bottom side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is substantially opposite the first side and is disposed proximate to the power source, the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side (figs. 1 and 2; left and right sides), and the third and fourth sides (left or right sides of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) respectively have widths (fig. 3) and external geometries that respectively substantially conform to the internal side walls of the handle housing portion such that a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 below; See also 35 USC 112a rejection above; There are points of contact that result in a majority of the side surfaces, including the widths, providing support to the side walls) and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below including close up annotated figs. 1 and 2. With regards to the limitation of “at an intersection”, Iwano is deemed to disclose the partial abutment “at the intersection”. The claim denotes a handle housing portion and a power source receiving portion, but does not put forward clear boundaries of where the handle housing portion ends and the power source receiving portion begins. As such, various points along the housing could be deemed to be “at the intersection” of these portions. The box depicted in the annotated figures below is deemed to encompass a possible range of such points. Given that there are abutments shown in this range, Iwano is deemed to disclose the abutment “at the intersection”) to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Housing 6a being mounted and abutting the side walls is going to provide some structural stability as it will reinforce the handle from bending at that point by providing reinforcing points of contact) and restrict movement of the housing with respect to the handle housing portion (Given that the housing 6a abuts the internal side walls, this will naturally restrict the movement of the handle with respect to the housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
878
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
880
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
501
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Office deems Iwano to disclose first and second screw bosses (as seen in figs. 1 and 2). Wherein the Applicant may argue that first and second screw bosses are not explicitly disclosed, the Office turns to Mashiko.
Mashiko teaches the handle housing portion (6b) has an internal geometry including internal side walls and first and second screw bosses (19b; paragraph 0039).
Given the teachings of Mashiko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Iwano to include the first and second screw bosses as in Mashiko. Doing so was notoriously well-known in the art as it provides the benefit of allowing for the housing to be assembled in two halves so as to allow for installation of the various internal components and access to them in the event of a needed repair or replacement.
The Office deems Iwano to disclose a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 above; see also 35 USC 112a rejection). Wherein the Applicant might argue that the abutments are not clearly enough shown, the Office alternatively points to Muller.
Muller teaches a power tool (1) with a housing (#8 of fig. 1; #12 of fig. 2) wherein a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides (left and right sides of housing #12 seen in figs. 1-2) respectively abut (@ #10; col. 5 line 37 – col. 6 line 14, “The switch 5 and/or the electronic unit 8 are/is therefore an electric and/or electronic module which are/is fastened to corresponding receptacles 10 in the housing 4”; “The switch 5 has a switch housing 12 which is accommodated in corresponding receptacles 10 in the housing 4”; figs. 1-2) the opposing internal side walls (4, 10) along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls (fig. 2).
Iwano is deemed to disclose a substantial portion of at least one of the third and fourth sides abuts a respective one of the internal side walls (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 above) and at least partially abuts the respective one of the internal side walls at an intersection (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above including close up annotated figs. 1 and 2). While the Office deems this feature to be clearly shown in the figures, to the extent that abutment is not explicitly spelled out in the language of the specification of Iwano, the Office notes that Muller teaches the well-known feature of having an internal housing abutting the internal side walls. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing to maintain the position of the apparent abutments of the housing of Iwano at the intersection of the handle housing portion and power source receiving portion while ensuring the presence of such abutments as taught by Muller. Doing so would provide solid points of contact for the internal housing and help to ensure the housing remained in its desired position.
The Office deems Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to disclose a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion and restrict movement of the housing with respect to the handle housing portion (Iwano - Housing 6a being mounted and abutting the side walls is going to provide some structural stability as it will reinforce the handle from bending at that point by providing reinforcing points of contact; Muller - col. 5 line 37 – col. 6 line 14). Wherein the Applicant may argue that the abutment of the housing alone does not provide the claimed structural stability to the handle housing portion, the Office alternatively further points to Wu.
Wu teaches a power tool (100) with a housing (209) at an intersection (fig. 2) of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 1 – “metal plate 209 that is thermally conductive and is arranged in parallel with the circuit board 207. The surface has a depression 2091, and the depression 2091 is generally formed by stamping or integral casting… The circuit board 207 is received in the recess 2091 in the thickness direction. The power tool 100 includes a circuit board 207 in an independent handle portion 101, and is separated from other components such as a battery to reduce mutual influence. Moreover, the installation of the metal plate 209 not only protects the circuit board components from the structure, It also helps to expel heat quickly. Specifically, the material of the metal plate 209 may be aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy.”; Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 2 “high-strength metal plate 209”; Applicant’s disclosure, see Abstract and Specification pg. 4 lines 5-14, notes that the “structural stability” is accomplished by making the housing out of metal. Given that the housing of Wu is made out of high-strength metal, it is deemed to provide “structural stability” for the same reasons as the Applicant’s housing is disclosed to do).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to provide structural stability by being made from a high-strength metal. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal, and thus providing the claimed “structural stability”, would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly.
Regarding claim 2, Iwano discloses connection wires (12, 12a, 12b) extending from the housing (6a) and coupled (paragraphs 0013-0014) to the motor (2) via the switch (5).
Regarding claim 3, Iwano discloses power source connection terminals (8, 8a) coupled (paragraph 0015) to the power source (20, 21) and located external to the housing (6a; figs. 1, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Iwano as modified by Wu discloses heat dissipating fins (Wu - #2093, Translation of Description, p. 4 last paragraph – p. 5 first paragraph; fig. 4) disposed on the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209, Translation of Description p. 4 paragraphs 1 and 2) and extending into an open area of the handle housing portion (Iwano – 110; Wu - 101).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to have heat dissipating fins. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal and fins to have heat dissipation properties would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly which also protects electrical components.
Regarding claim 5, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the heat dissipating fins (Wu - 2093) are integral (Wu – fig. 4; Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph) with the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209).
Regarding claim 6, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is thermally coupled (Wu - Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph – “The power part 2071 has a thermal conductive glue or a thermal conductive cotton 204 that conducts heat to the metal plate 209”) to the electrical components (Iwano – 6; Wu - 207, 2071) to dissipate heat from the electrical components to the heat dissipating fins (Wu – 2093; Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is directly connected (Iwano – paragraph 0014 – “first substrate 6 is attached in a case 6a”; Wu - Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph – “The power part 2071 has a thermal conductive glue or a thermal conductive cotton 204 that conducts heat to the metal plate 209”; see also screws and bosses in figs. 3-4) to the electrical components (Iwano – 6; Wu - 207, 2071).
Regarding claim 17, Iwano discloses wherein the power source is a battery (20, 21; paragraphs 0012 and 0016).
Regarding claim 18, Iwano as modified by Wu discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is composed of a material (Wu - Translation of Description p. 4 paragraphs 1 and 2 – “aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy… high-strength metal plate 209”) that provides structural stability to the handle housing portion (In the Applicant’s disclosure, see Abstract and Specification pg. 4 lines 5-14, it is noted that the “structural stability” is accomplished by making the housing out of metal. Given that the housing of Wu is made out of high-strength metal, it is deemed to provide “structural stability” for the same reasons as the Applicant’s housing is disclosed to do).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to provide structural stability by being made from a high-strength metal. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal, and thus providing the claimed “structural stability”, would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly.
Regarding claim 19, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above).
Regarding claim 21, Iwano discloses wherein the second side is substantially straight (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above; see also fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Iwano discloses wherein the housing includes an internal opening (Top opening in 6a seen in fig. 3 which 6 is placed into) adjacent the electrical components (6).
Regarding claim 9, Iwano discloses a potting compound (paragraph 0018 – “… the first substrate may be potted. That is, for example, in the above embodiment, the case 6a housing the first substrate 6 is filled with an insulating resin or the like so that the first substrate 6 is completely covered”) disposed within the internal opening.
Regarding claim 10, Iwano discloses an electronics module (6a) for a tool (1; fig. 1) having a tool housing (100, 110; paragraph 0012; see annotate figs. 1 and 2 above) including a motor housing portion (100 – portion that contains motor 2) and a handle housing portion (110), wherein the handle housing portion includes a gripping portion (110) extending from the motor housing portion and a power source receiving portion (portion that receives battery pack 20; see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) at an end opposite the motor housing portion, wherein the tool includes a motor (2; paragraph 0012) disposed in the motor housing portion, a power source (20, 21) adapted to releasably couple to the power source receiving portion and provide power to the motor (paragraph 0012), a trigger (4), a switch (5) disposed in the handle housing portion proximate to the motor housing portion and operably coupled to the motor and adapted to selectively switch on and off power to the motor based on actuation of the trigger (paragraph 0013), and electrical components (6; alternatively 6, 11 and 12) operably coupled to the power source and the motor (paragraphs 0014 and 0016), and wherein the handle housing portion has an internal geometry including internal side walls (see walls of 110 in annotated close up figs. 1 and 2 above) and first and second screw bosses (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), the electronics module comprising:
a housing (6a) separate from the switch (figs. 1-3), wherein the housing is adapted to be disposed in the handle housing portion between the switch and the power source (figs. 1-2) and is adapted to enclose the electrical components (fig. 3; paragraphs 0014 and 0018), the housing having first, second, third, and fourth sides, wherein when the housing is disposed in the handle housing portion, the first side (top side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is disposed proximate to the switch, the second side (bottom side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is substantially opposite the first side and is disposed proximate to the power source, the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side (figs. 1 and 2; left and right sides), and the third and fourth sides (left or right sides of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) respectively have widths (fig. 3) and external geometries that respectively substantially conform to the internal side walls of the handle housing portion such that a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 below; See also 35 USC 112a rejection above; There are points of contact that result in a majority of the side surfaces, including the widths, providing support to the side walls) and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below including close up annotated figs. 1 and 2. With regards to the limitation of “at an intersection”, Iwano is deemed to disclose the partial abutment “at the intersection”. The claim denotes a handle housing portion and a power source receiving portion, but does not put forward clear boundaries of where the handle housing portion ends and the power source receiving portion begins. As such, various points along the housing could be deemed to be “at the intersection” of these portions. The box depicted in the annotated figures below is deemed to encompass a possible range of such points. Given that there are abutments shown in this range, Iwano is deemed to disclose the abutment “at the intersection”) to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Housing 6a being mounted and abutting the side walls is going to provide some structural stability as it will reinforce the handle from bending at that point by providing reinforcing points of contact) and restrict movement of the housing with respect to the handle housing portion (Given that the housing 6a abuts the internal side walls, this will naturally restrict the movement of the handle with respect to the housing).
The Office deems Iwano to disclose first and second screw bosses (as seen in figs. 1 and 2). Wherein the Applicant may argue that first and second screw bosses are not explicitly disclosed, the Office turns to Mashiko.
Mashiko teaches the handle housing portion (6b) has an internal geometry including internal side walls and first and second screw bosses (19b; paragraph 0039).
Given the teachings of Mashiko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Iwano to include the first and second screw bosses as in Mashiko. Doing so was notoriously well-known in the art as it provides the benefit of allowing for the housing to be assembled in two halves so as to allow for installation of the various internal components and access to them in the event of a needed repair or replacement.
a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 above; see also 35 USC 112a rejection). Wherein the Applicant might argue that the abutments are not clearly enough shown, the Office alternatively points to Muller.
Muller teaches a power tool (1) with a housing (#8 of fig. 1; #12 of fig. 2) wherein a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides (left and right sides of housing #12 seen in figs. 1-2) respectively abut (@ #10; col. 5 line 37 – col. 6 line 14, “The switch 5 and/or the electronic unit 8 are/is therefore an electric and/or electronic module which are/is fastened to corresponding receptacles 10 in the housing 4”; “The switch 5 has a switch housing 12 which is accommodated in corresponding receptacles 10 in the housing 4”; figs. 1-2) the opposing internal side walls (4, 10) along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls (fig. 2).
Iwano is deemed to disclose a substantial portion of at least one of the third and fourth sides abuts a respective one of the internal side walls (see annotated close up of figs. 1 and 2 above) and at least partially abuts the respective one of the internal side walls at an intersection (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above including close up annotated figs. 1 and 2). While the Office deems this feature to be clearly shown in the figures, to the extent that abutment is not explicitly spelled out in the language of the specification of Iwano, the Office notes that Muller teaches the well-known feature of having an internal housing abutting the internal side walls. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing to maintain the position of the apparent abutments of the housing of Iwano at the intersection of the handle housing portion and power source receiving portion while ensuring the presence of such abutments as taught by Muller. Doing so would provide solid points of contact for the internal housing and help to ensure the housing remained in its desired position.
The Office deems Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to disclose a substantial portion of the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls along a majority of the respective widths and the third and fourth sides respectively abut the opposing internal side walls at an intersection of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion and restrict movement of the housing with respect to the handle housing portion (Iwano - Housing 6a being mounted and abutting the side walls is going to provide some structural stability as it will reinforce the handle from bending at that point by providing reinforcing points of contact; Muller - col. 5 line 37 – col. 6 line 14). Wherein the Applicant may argue that the abutment of the housing alone does not provide the claimed structural stability to the handle housing portion, the Office alternatively further points to Wu.
Wu teaches a power tool (100) with a housing (209) at an intersection (fig. 2) of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 1 – “metal plate 209 that is thermally conductive and is arranged in parallel with the circuit board 207. The surface has a depression 2091, and the depression 2091 is generally formed by stamping or integral casting… The circuit board 207 is received in the recess 2091 in the thickness direction. The power tool 100 includes a circuit board 207 in an independent handle portion 101, and is separated from other components such as a battery to reduce mutual influence. Moreover, the installation of the metal plate 209 not only protects the circuit board components from the structure, It also helps to expel heat quickly. Specifically, the material of the metal plate 209 may be aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy.”; Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 2 “high-strength metal plate 209”; Applicant’s disclosure, see Abstract and Specification pg. 4 lines 5-14, notes that the “structural stability” is accomplished by making the housing out of metal. Given that the housing of Wu is made out of high-strength metal, it is deemed to provide “structural stability” for the same reasons as the Applicant’s housing is disclosed to do).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to provide structural stability by being made from a high-strength metal. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal, and thus providing the claimed “structural stability”, would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly.
Regarding claim 11, Iwano as modified by Wu discloses heat dissipating fins (Wu - #2093, Translation of Description, p. 4 last paragraph – p. 5 first paragraph; fig. 4) disposed on the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209, Translation of Description p. 4 paragraphs 1 and 2) and extending into an open area of the handle housing portion (Iwano – 110; Wu - 101).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to have heat dissipating fins. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal and fins to have heat dissipation properties would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly which also protects electrical components.
Regarding claim 12, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the heat dissipating fins (Wu - 2093) are integral (Wu – fig. 4; Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph) with the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209).
Regarding claim 13, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is thermally coupled (Wu - Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph – “The power part 2071 has a thermal conductive glue or a thermal conductive cotton 204 that conducts heat to the metal plate 209”) to the electrical components (Iwano – 6; Wu - 207, 2071) to dissipate heat from the electrical components to the heat dissipating fins (Wu – 2093; Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Iwano as modified by Wu above discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is directly connected (Iwano – paragraph 0014 – “first substrate 6 is attached in a case 6a”; Wu - Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph – “The power part 2071 has a thermal conductive glue or a thermal conductive cotton 204 that conducts heat to the metal plate 209”; see also screws and bosses in figs. 3-4) to the electrical components (Iwano – 6; Wu - 207, 2071).
Regarding claim 25, Iwano discloses wherein the housing includes an internal opening (Top opening in 6a seen in fig. 3 which 6 is placed into) adjacent the electrical components (6).
Regarding claim 16, Iwano discloses a potting compound (paragraph 0018 – “… the first substrate may be potted. That is, for example, in the above embodiment, the case 6a housing the first substrate 6 is filled with an insulating resin or the like so that the first substrate 6 is completely covered”) disposed within the internal opening.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (JP 2009-196024 A) in view of Mashiko (US 2014/0158390 A1) (alternatively) in further view of Muller (US Patent 9,004,191) and (alternatively) in further view of Wu (CN 206948791 U) in view of Ekstrom et al. (PG Pub 2015/0282337 A1) hereinafter referred to as Ekstrom.
Regarding claim 20, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), but fails to disclose that the first length is larger than the second length.
However, Ekstrom teaches wherein the first length is larger than the second length (Ekstrom – fig. 3a below).
PNG
media_image5.png
532
551
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of Ekstrom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the external geometry of the housing of Iwano so that the first side was longer than the second side as taught by Ekstrom. Doing so could have reduced the amount of play between the various components of the tool. The Office notes that it is not using Ekstrom’s teachings to bring the switch into the housing. The Office is merely demonstrating that it was known and would have been obvious to have the already existing housing of Iwano be better fitted to the internal geometry of the handle.
Furthermore, the limitation of the “first length is larger than the second length” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the lengths of the sides of the housing so that the first length was larger than the second. Having one side longer than another to better fit the internal geometry of a handle or to otherwise save on cost of materials would have been obvious motivations for achieving the claimed invention before the time of effective filing. The Applicant’s disclosure does not assert that this relative difference in size between sides of a housing solves any stated problem. Insofar as it could be argued that the change in size to is to better map to the internal geometry of the handle, that problem is not a novel one and is clearly envisioned by the cited art and the field of art as a whole which almost universally desires to have internal components, such as the aforementioned housing, generally conform to the internal geometries of the handle in which they are situated which themselves can assume a variety of geometries and orientations.
Claim(s) 22, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (JP 2009-196024 A) in view of Mashiko (US 2014/0158390 A1) (alternatively) in further view of Muller (US Patent 9,004,191) and (alternatively) in further view of Wu (CN 206948791 U) in view of Cooper et al. (PG Pub 2004/0011544 A1) hereinafter referred as Cooper.
Regarding claim 22, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), but fails to disclose the third length is larger than the fourth length.
However, Cooper teaches a housing (100) wherein the third length (left side of 100, fig. 2) is larger (the arc of housing 100 to the right means that the left side will be longer; alternatively, see also fig. 3 with element 102 showing one side being longer than the other) than the fourth length (right side of 100, fig. 2).
Given the teachings of Cooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the external geometry of the housing of Iwano so that the third length is larger than the fourth length as taught by Cooper. Doing so could have reduced the amount of play between the various components of the tool. The Office notes that it is not using Cooper’s teachings to bring the switch into the housing. The Office is merely demonstrating that it was known and would have been obvious to have the already existing housing of Iwano be better fitted to the internal geometry of the handle.
Furthermore, the limitation of the “third length is larger than the fourth length” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to adjust the lengths of the sides of the housing so that the third length was larger than the fourth. Having one side longer than another to better fit the internal geometry of a handle or to otherwise save on cost of materials would have obvious motivations for achieving the claimed invention at the time of effective filing. The Applicant’s disclosure does not assert that this relative difference in size between sides of a housing solves any stated problem. Insofar as it could be argued that the change in size to is to better map to the internal geometry of the handle, that problem is not a novel one and is clearly envisioned by the cited art and the field of art as a whole which almost universally desires to have internal components, such as the aforementioned housing, generally conform to the internal geometries of the handle in which they are situated which themselves can assume a variety of geometries and orientations.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Iwano discloses a housing (6a), but fails to disclose wherein the housing is a clamshell housing.
However, Cooper teaches wherein the housing (100) is a clamshell housing (102, 104; paragraph 0019).
Given the teachings of Cooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the housing of Iwano so that it made use of a clam shell design as taught by Cooper. Doing so would have reduced the amount of contaminants being exposed to the electrical components. The Office notes that it is not using Cooper’s teachings to bring the switch into the housing. The Office is merely demonstrating that it was known and would have been obvious to have the already existing housing of Iwano be a clamshell design to provide better protection to the electrical components as both the housings of Iwano and Cooper are sub structures within the handle designed to protect electrical components.
Claim(s) 28, 30 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (JP 2009-196024 A) in view of Mashiko (US 2014/0158390 A1) in further view of Wu (CN 206948791 U) in further view of Cooper (US 2004/0011544 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Iwano discloses an electronics module (6a) for (See 35 USC 112b rejection above for interpretation) a tool (1; fig. 1) having a tool housing (100, 110; paragraph 0012; see annotate figs. 1 and 2 above) including a motor housing portion (100 – portion that contains motor 2) and a handle housing portion (110), wherein the handle housing portion includes a gripping portion (110) extending from the motor housing portion and a power source receiving portion (portion that receives battery pack 20; see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) at an end opposite the motor housing portion, wherein the tool includes a motor (2; paragraph 0012) disposed in the motor housing portion, a power source (20, 21) adapted to releasably couple to the power source receiving portion and provide power to the motor (paragraph 0012), a trigger (4), and electrical components (6; alternatively 6, 11 and 12) operably coupled to the power source and the motor (paragraphs 0014 and 0016), and wherein the handle housing portion has an internal geometry (see walls of 110 in annotated close up figs. 1 and 2 above) including a screw boss (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), the electronics module comprising:
a housing (6a) enclosing the electrical components (fig. 3; paragraphs 0014 and 0018) and adapted to be disposed in the handle housing portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Housing 6a being mounted and abutting the side walls is going to provide some structural stability as it will reinforce the handle from bending at that point by providing reinforcing points of contact), the housing having first, second, third, and fourth sides, wherein when the housing is disposed in the handle housing portion, the first side (top side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is substantially opposite the second side and disposed distal to the power source, the second side (bottom side of 6a / 6 as seen in figs. 1 and 2) is disposed at or below an intersection (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above including close up annotated figs. 1 and 2. With regards to the limitation of “at an intersection”, Iwano is deemed to disclose the partial abutment “at the intersection”. The claim denotes a handle housing portion and a power source receiving portion, but does not put forward clear boundaries of where the handle housing portion ends and the power source receiving portion begins. As such, various points along the housing could be deemed to be “at the intersection” of these portions. The box depicted in the annotated figures above is deemed to encompass a possible range of such points. Given that there are abutments shown in this range, Iwano is deemed to disclose the partial abutment “at the intersection”) of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion, and the third side is substantially opposite the fourth side (see annotated close up figs. 1 and 2 above).
The Office deems Iwano to disclose first and second screw bosses (as seen in figs. 1 and 2). Wherein the Applicant may argue that first and second screw bosses are not explicitly disclosed, the Office turns to Mashiko.
Mashiko teaches the handle housing portion (6b) has an internal geometry including internal side walls and first and second screw bosses (19b; paragraph 0039).
Given the teachings of Mashiko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Iwano to include the first and second screw bosses as in Mashiko. Doing so was notoriously well-known in the art as it provides the benefit of allowing for the housing to be assembled in two halves so as to allow for installation of the various internal components and access to them in the event of a needed repair or replacement.
Iwano in view of Mashiko to discloses the handle housing portion (Iwano – 110; Mashiko - 6b) has an internal geometry including internal side walls and first and second screw bosses (Iwano – see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above; Mashiko - 19b; paragraph 0039) and is further deemed to disclose the housing disposed in the handle housing portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion. Iwano in view of Mashiko does not disclose the third side includes a semi-circular recess adapted to matingly receive and abut the screw boss. Wherein the Applicant may argue that the abutment of the housing alone does not provide the claimed structural stability to the handle housing portion, the Office further points to Wu.
Wu teaches a power tool (100) with an electronics module comprising: a housing (209) at an intersection (fig. 2) of the gripping portion and the power source receiving portion to provide structural stability to the handle housing portion (Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 1 – “metal plate 209 that is thermally conductive and is arranged in parallel with the circuit board 207. The surface has a depression 2091, and the depression 2091 is generally formed by stamping or integral casting… The circuit board 207 is received in the recess 2091 in the thickness direction. The power tool 100 includes a circuit board 207 in an independent handle portion 101, and is separated from other components such as a battery to reduce mutual influence. Moreover, the installation of the metal plate 209 not only protects the circuit board components from the structure, It also helps to expel heat quickly. Specifically, the material of the metal plate 209 may be aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy.”; Translation of Description – p. 4 paragraph 2 “high-strength metal plate 209”; Applicant’s disclosure, see Abstract and Specification pg. 4 lines 5-14, notes that the “structural stability” is accomplished by making the housing out of metal. Given that the housing of Wu is made out of high-strength metal, it is deemed to provide “structural stability” for the same reasons as the Applicant’s housing is disclosed to do).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano (alternatively in view of Muller) to provide structural stability by being made from a high-strength metal. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal, and thus providing the claimed “structural stability”, would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly.
Additionally Wu teaches the third side (either left or right side of 209 as seen in fig. 4) is substantially opposite the fourth side (either right or left side of 209 as seen in fig. 4) and includes a semi-circular recess (figs. 2 and 4 – see notches on both left and right sides of 209 that accommodate mounting posts; claim 6; Translation of Description – p. 5 first paragraph “A position of the metal plate 209 corresponding to the mounting post 1013 is provided with a notch”) adapted to matingly receive the screw boss (1013).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the screw boss positioning and external shape of the housing of Iwano in view of Mashiko with the semi-circular recess adapted to matingly receive the screw boss of Wu. It was often necessary in the prior art to accommodate different geometries of electrical components and needing screws at different points in the handle to better mount the tool housings together. Having a semi-circular recess in the housing allows for a tighter fit of internal components which can save space when designing and assembling the tool.
The Office also deems the specific locations of concave or other semi-circular recesses in the housing to be a matter of obvious design choice to best make use of whatever space exists within the handle. The Applicant has not disclosed that having such recesses at specific locations serves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than to accommodate the presence of screw bosses which are notoriously well-known to be placeable at a variety of positions depending on desired architecture of the handle or a need for connection points of the housing halves. It also appears that the device would work equally well with recesses at different locations as necessitated by the location of different screw bosses or without any recesses should no screw bosses be present at that location.
Iwano in view of Mashiko in view of Wu discloses the handle housing portion (Iwano – 110; Mashiko - 6b) has an internal geometry including internal side walls and first and second screw bosses (Iwano – see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above; Mashiko - 19b; paragraph 0039) and semi-circular recesses adapted to matingly receive the screw boss (Wu - 1013), but does not specifically disclose the recesses abut the screw bosses.
However, Cooper teaches a semi-circular recess (see notches in #100, 102, 104 in figs. 2-3) adapted to matingly receive and abut the screw bosses (paragraph 0019 – “The subhousing 100 is held in position, ordinarily by screws, on the metallic housing to maintain the spacing of the switch 106 within the handle portion 16 of the housing 12.”; For the screws to hold subhousing 100 in position, they will need to contact, i.e. abut, the screw bosses will need to abut the housing).
Given the teachings of Cooper it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Iwano in view of Mashiko in view of Wu to have abutting screw bosses as taught by Cooper. Doing so would allow the internal housing to be more securely mounted to the tool inner wall and held in proper position.
Regarding claim 30, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above).
Regarding claim 32, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), but fails to disclose the third length is larger than the fourth length.
However, Cooper teaches a housing (100) wherein the third length (left side of 100, fig. 2) is larger (the arc of housing 100 to the right means that the left side will be longer; alternatively, see also fig. 3 with element 102 showing one side being longer than the other) than the fourth length (right side of 100, fig. 2).
Given the teachings of Cooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the external geometry of the housing of Iwano so that the third length is larger than the fourth length as taught by Cooper. Doing so could have reduced the amount of play between the various components of the tool. The Office notes that it is not using Cooper’s teachings to bring the switch into the housing. The Office is merely demonstrating that it was known and would have been obvious to have the already existing housing of Iwano be better fitted to the internal geometry of the handle.
Furthermore, the limitation of the “third length is larger than the fourth length” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to adjust the lengths of the sides of the housing so that the third length was larger than the fourth. Having one side longer than another to better fit the internal geometry of a handle or to otherwise save on cost of materials would have obvious motivations for achieving the claimed invention at the time of effective filing. The Applicant’s disclosure does not assert that this relative difference in size between sides of a housing solves any stated problem. Insofar as it could be argued that the change in size to is to better map to the internal geometry of the handle, that problem is not a novel one and is clearly envisioned by the cited art and the field of art as a whole which almost universally desires to have internal components, such as the aforementioned housing, generally conform to the internal geometries of the handle in which they are situated which themselves can assume a variety of geometries and orientations.
Regarding claim 33, Iwano as modified by Wu discloses wherein the housing (Iwano – 6a; Wu – 209) is thermally coupled (Wu - Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph – “The power part 2071 has a thermal conductive glue or a thermal conductive cotton 204 that conducts heat to the metal plate 209”) to the electrical components (Iwano – 6; Wu - 207, 2071) to transfer heat from the electrical components (Wu – via 2093; Translation of Description, p. 5 first paragraph).
Given the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the housing of Iwano to have heat dissipating features. Both Iwano and Wu are concerned with the problem of protecting electrical components. Wu teaches that providing a housing to be made out of metal and fins to have heat dissipation properties would have been obvious because a metal housing helps to separate and protect components from one another while also providing a means to help expel heat quickly which also protects electrical components.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (JP 2009-196024 A) in view of Mashiko (US 2014/0158390 A1) in further view of Wu (CN 206948791 U) in further view of Cooper (US 2004/0011544 A1) in view of Mergener et al. (PG Pub 2013/0313925 A1) hereinafter referred to as Mergener.
Regarding claim 29, Iwano as modified by Mashiko and Wu and Cooper discloses having concave portions at the locations of screw bosses (see rejection of claim 28 above), wherein the housing includes a concave portion at an intersection of the first and fourth sides (See Cooper, fig. 2 – screw boss shown near the upper left corner of housing 100).
Given the teachings of Cooper it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have screw bosses located at different points within the handle including at an intersection of the first and fourth sides of the housing and corresponding concave portions for those screw bosses. Locating screw bosses at different positions was very well-known in the art at the time of the invention and can provide for different points of connection between the two handle halves that generally make up most hand tools. Different points of connection can provide alternative or extra means of connecting the two handle halves to ensure proper connection.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Cooper’s screw boss is not exactly located at the intersection of the first and fourth sides, Mergener further teaches a tool with an internal housing (154) wherein the internal housing includes a first concave portion (see figs. 3A-B below) at an intersection of the first and fourth sides that is shaped complementary to a screw boss.
PNG
media_image6.png
842
721
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
790
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of Mergener it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have screw bosses located at different points within the handle including at an intersection of the first and fourth sides of the housing and corresponding concave portions for those screw bosses. Locating screw bosses at different positions was very well-known in the art at the time of the invention and can provide for different points of connection between the two handle halves that generally make up most hand tools. Different points of connection can provide alternative or extra means of connecting the two handle halves to ensure proper connection.
The Office also deems the specific locations of concave or other semi-circular recesses in the housing to be a matter of obvious design choice to best make use of whatever space exists within the handle. The Applicant has not disclosed that having such recesses at specific locations serves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than to accommodate the presence of screw bosses which are notoriously well-known to be placeable at a variety of positions depending on desired architecture of the handle or a need for connection points of the housing halves. It also appears that the device would work equally well with recesses at different locations as necessitated by the location of different screw bosses or without any recesses should no screw bosses be present at that location.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (JP 2009-196024 A) in view of Mashiko (US 2014/0158390 A1) in view of Wu (CN 206948791 U) in further view of Cooper (US 2004/0011544 A1) in view of Ekstrom (PG Pub 2015/0282337 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Iwano discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides respectively have first, second, third, and fourth lengths (see close up annotated figs. 1 and 2 above), but fails to disclose that the first length is larger than the second length.
However, Ekstrom teaches wherein the first length is larger than the second length (Ekstrom – fig. 3a above in rejection of claim 20).
Given the teachings of Ekstrom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the external geometry of the housing of Iwano so that the first side was longer than the second side as taught by Ekstrom. Doing so could have reduced the amount of play between the various components of the tool. The Office notes that it is not using Ekstrom’s teachings to bring the switch into the housing. The Office is merely demonstrating that it was known and would have been obvious to have the already existing housing of Iwano be better fitted to the internal geometry of the handle.
Furthermore, the limitation of the “first length is larger than the second length” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the lengths of the sides of the housing so that the first length was larger than the second. Having one side longer than another to better fit the internal geometry of a handle or to otherwise save on cost of materials would have been obvious motivations for achieving the claimed invention before the time of effective filing. The Applicant’s disclosure does not assert that this relative difference in size between sides of a housing solves any stated problem. Insofar as it could be argued that the change in size to is to better map to the internal geometry of the handle, that problem is not a novel one and is clearly envisioned by the cited art and the field of art as a whole which almost universally desires to have internal components, such as the aforementioned housing, generally conform to the internal geometries of the handle in which they are situated which themselves can assume a variety of geometries and orientations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments as they pertain to all independent claims rely on amendments which are deemed to introduce new matter and are rejected under 35 USC 112a as detailed above.
As best understood, when viewed in light of the original disclosure, the cited prior art of record is deemed to read on the claimed subject matter. The Applicant relies on limitations speaking to the abutment of various sides with the internal wall and the amount of such abutments which was never disclosed in the original specification. This issue is fully addressed in the 35 USC 112a rejection above, and it is the determination of the Office that the Applicant has taken considerable liberty with the original specification when drafting the amended language such that it is not supported by such.
Given that the Applicant’s entire set of arguments rely on these unsupported limitations and the Office is forced to interpret the claims insofar as they can be read within light of the original specification, the Office determines that the prior art of record still reads on the claims as best understood. Details and reasoning are provided in full in the rejections above. The rejections for Claims 1 and 10 are effectively maintained. The rejection for claim 28 has been modified to address the new limitation, which is also not supported by the original disclosure.
To the extent that the Applicant makes arguments that are not based on the new matter limitations, the Office will address those in short order.
Applicant argues, the Office previously noted that “Applicant has not disclosed that having the recess at specific locations serves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than to accommodate the presence of screw bosses. (Office Action, p. 32). However, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the specification of the present application specifically recites:
As shown in FIG. 4, the handle 135 can include a curve 165 in the housing 145 and a corresponding screw boss 170 that can fit within the curve 165. In this manner, the curve 165 and the screw boss 170 can be firmly positioned next to one another for ease of assembling the handle 135 with the electrical components 140. For example, a user can insert the curve 165 portion of the housing into the internal area of the handle 135, align the curve 165 with the screw boss 170, and fasten the handle 135 together thereafter. Present Application, Para. [0019]”
This position by the Office was made with respect to the claimed position of the screw boss being located at an intersection of the first and fourth sides did not serve a particular purpose. The Applicant’s citation of paragraph 0019 does not refute this stance. It makes no mention of any importance as to the screw boss’s position at an intersection of these two sides. The Office maintains its position.
Regarding Ekstrom teaching differences in length of opposing sides of the inner housing, the Office still deems Ekstrom to show this clearly. The lines presented are there for guidance and scale, but it is clear that one opposing side is longer than the other. The Office’s alternative contention that the limitation of the “first length is larger than the second length” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice is not contested by the Applicant either and is continued to be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731