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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the substitute drawing of Fig. 4, the amendments to claims 1, 5, 11 and 12, the cancelation of claim 15, and the addition of new claims 21-28.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The gripping region of claims 26 and 28. This gripping region should have a reference number included in both the specification and the drawings without the addition of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 21-26 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 claim 1, the claim states “wherein at least half of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level” in lines 19-20 of the claim. The limitation “at least half” appears to be new matter as the instant specification only states “a projection of the battery pack 40 in the working level is at least partially behind a projection of the handle in the preceding plane” in P. 0042 and the drawings show at least a portion of the battery pack overlapping the handle but how much of the handle the battery overlaps is uncertain. Further, the instant disclosure does not disclose an upper boundary for the claimed limitation. Therefore, this overlap of at least half of the handle by the battery pack appears to be new matter. To expedite prosecution as there is support in the instant disclosure for an overlap the Examiner has best understood the limitation to require “at least a portion” instead of “at least half”.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 21-26, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for containing new matter due to their dependance on claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the claim states “wherein at least 60% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The limitation “at least 60%” appears to be new matter as the instant disclosure does not disclose a specific overlap range for the projections of these two structures and instead only appears to support at least a portion as discussed in the above new matter rejection of claim 1. To expedite prosecution as there is support in the instant disclosure for an overlap the Examiner has best understood the limitation to require “at least a portion”.
Regarding claim 22, the claim states “wherein at least 70% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The limitation “at least 70%” appears to be new matter as the instant disclosure does not disclose a specific overlap range for the projections of these two structures and instead only appears to support at least a portion as discussed in the above new matter rejection of claim 1. To expedite prosecution as there is support in the instant disclosure for an overlap the Examiner has best understood the limitation to require “at least a portion”.
Regarding claim 23, the claim states “wherein at least 80% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The limitation “at least 80%” appears to be new matter as the instant disclosure does not disclose a specific overlap range for the projections of these two structures and instead only appears to support at least a portion as discussed in the above new matter rejection of claim 1. To expedite prosecution as there is support in the instant disclosure for an overlap the Examiner has best understood the limitation to require “at least a portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 13-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCue et al. (US 2021/0154879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCue teaches a one-hand chainsaw (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 20), comprising:
a housing (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 24) comprising a main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32) and a handle (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 36);
a motor (McCue, Fig. 3, 50) provided in the main housing portion, the motor having a shaft (McCue, Fig. 3, 51);
a cutting device (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44), the cutting device comprising;
a guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40) extending along a front-rear direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) below), and
a saw chain (McCue, Fig. 1-3 and 5, 44), and
wherein the saw chain is disposed around the guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44, P. 0018); and
wherein an end of the cutting device is connected to the main housing portion (McCue, P. 0018), and the cutting device is coupled to the motor shaft (McCue, P. 0021) and driven by the motor to work (McCue, P. 0022); and
a battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 64) extending from the main housing portion and disposed below the handle, the battery coupling portion of McCue is at least partially disposed below at least a portion of the handle of McCue, wherein the battery coupling portion is configured to connect a battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68, P. 0024); and
wherein at least half of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level, as best understood from the instant disclosure the instant limitation requires at least a portion of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level which is disclosed by McCue (McCue, Fig. 1, 36 and 68) as a portion of the battery of McCue slides into the handle into a battery receiving portion (McCue, P. 0024, Fig. 1, 64).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein the main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32) comprises a motor housing portion (McCue, Fig. 2-3, 28) and a central portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) below) which is disposed below the motor housing portion, the motor housing portion is provided with a cavity for accommodating the motor (McCue, P. 0021), and the central portion is connected to the battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 68 and 88).
PNG
media_image2.png
894
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, wherein the handle (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 36) comprises a first end and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above), the first end is connected to the main housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above), the battery pack is disposed below the second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above), and the second end is connected to the central portion through the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above).
Regarding claim 5, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, wherein the handle is disposed along a first straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), the cutting device is disposed along a second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), the motor shaft is disposed along a third straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), an intersection of the third straight line and the second straight line is in the central portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), and an intersection of the first straight line and the third straight line is in the motor housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), the first straight line intersects with the second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) and an intersection of the first straight line and the second straight line is behind the main housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above).
Regarding claim 6, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 5, wherein the second straight line and the third straight line intersect at a first intersection (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), the third straight line and the first straight line intersect at second intersection (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), and a distance between the first intersection and the second intersection is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 80% of a height of the one-hand chainsaw (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), as can be seen in the annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 of McCue the distance between the first and second intersections is less than half of the height of the one-hand chainsaw which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, wherein an upper surface of the central portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) is provided with a stopper portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) protruding upward and the stopper portion is spaced apart from the motor housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above).
Regarding claim 14, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 13, wherein the stopper portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) extends away from the cutting device along a fifth straight line inclined with respect to the up-down direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above).
Regarding claim 21, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein at least 60% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level, in view of the instant disclosure as best understood by the Examiner the instant invention only requires a portion of the projection of the handle onto a working level to overlap a projection of the battery pack onto the working level which is disclosed by McCue (McCue, Fig. 1, 36 and 68) as a portion of the battery of McCue slides into the handle into a battery receiving portion (McCue, P. 0024, Fig. 1, 64).
Regarding claim 22, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein at least 70% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level, in view of the instant disclosure as best understood by the Examiner the instant invention only requires a portion of the projection of the handle onto a working level to overlap a projection of the battery pack onto the working level which is disclosed by McCue (McCue, Fig. 1, 36 and 68) as a portion of the battery of McCue slides into the handle into a battery receiving portion (McCue, P. 0024, Fig. 1, 64).
Regarding claim 23, McCue discloses the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein at least 80% of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level, in view of the instant disclosure as best understood by the Examiner the instant invention only requires a portion of the projection of the handle onto a working level to overlap a projection of the battery pack onto the working level which is disclosed by McCue (McCue, Fig. 1, 36 and 68) as a portion of the battery of McCue slides into the handle into a battery receiving portion (McCue, P. 0024, Fig. 1, 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Amano et al. (US 5,685,080 A).
Regarding claim 7, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein a center of gravity of the one-hand chainsaw is not beyond the rear end of the handle (McCue, Fig. 1-2, CG), the center of gravity taught by McCue is located in the main housing portion in front of the handle.
McCue does not teach wherein a center of gravity of the one-hand chainsaw is in the handle.
Amano teaches a chainsaw (Amano, Fig. 1-3, 1) wherein a center of gravity is in the handle (Amano, Col. 2, lines 22-24). Having a center of gravity helps to improve the handling of the chainsaw (Amano, Col. 1, 49-55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue such that the center of gravity was located in the handle as taught by Amano instead of the main housing portion to improve the handling of the chainsaw.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Brotto et al. (US 2007/0240892 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1.
McCue does not teach wherein a ratio of maximum output power of the motor to a weight of the one-hand chainsaw is greater than or equal to 320 W/kg and less than or equal to 800 W/kg.
Brotto teaches a chainsaw where a ratio of maximum output power of the motor to a weight of the chain (Brotto, P. 0007) is greater than or equal to 320 W/kg and less than or equal to 800 W/kg (Brotto, P. 0022), Brotto teaches a chainsaw wherein the ratio of output power to weight is 70 W/lb or greater or 154.35 W/kg or greater (Brotto, P. 0022) this range includes the claimed range of 320 W/kg to 800 W/kg. Such power to weight ratios allow for cordless battery powered chainsaws to provide a good alternative to high powered corded chainsaws (Brotto, P. 0017).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue such that the power to weight ratio was greater than 70 W/lb or 154.35 W/kg as taught by Brotto as doing so provides a better alternative to corded chainsaws.
Regarding claim 9, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, the volume and dimensions of the device being undisclosed (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 20).
McCue does not teach a maximum output power, a ratio of maximum output power of the motor to a volume of the one-hand chainsaw is greater than or equal to 0.5 W/cm3 and less than or equal to 10 W/cm3.
Brotto teaches a chainsaw with a maximum output power (Brotto, P. 0022). The chainsaw also has a volume (Brotto, Fig. 14, 1400) even though the exact volume is not specifically taught by the prior art. Further, Brotto teaches that it is well known in the art to consider size and power when designing cordless power tools and to weigh these aspects against each other to improve ergonomic design along with the improved performance of the device (Brotto, P. 0057 and 0065).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue such that the ratio of maximum output power of the motor to a volume of the one-hand chainsaw was any reasonable ratio as it is well known in the art for a worker in the art to weigh the volume and power of a device against each other, as evidenced by Brotto, to help improve the ergonomic design of the device while also improving the performance of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0111582) and Fukinuki et al. (US 2020/0376705 A1).
Regarding claim 11, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein the main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32) comprises a motor housing portion (McCue, Fig. 2-3, 28) and a central portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above) which is disposed below the motor housing portion, the motor housing portion is provided with a cavity for accommodating the motor (McCue, P. 0021), the central portion is connected to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above), a circuit board is coupled to the motor (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (McCue) below) and disposed in the main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32), the central portion is connected to the battery coupling portion through a handle guard portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 88).
McCue does not teach a circuit board disposed in the battery coupling portion, wherein the battery coupling portion is provided with an air inlet, the motor housing portion is provided with an air outlet, and an airflow enters through the air inlet, passes the circuit board and the motor, and then flows out of the air outlet on the motor housing portion.
Suzuki teaches a battery powered tool (Suzuki, Figs. 1-10, 2) wherein a circuit board (Suzuki, Fig. 3, 40) is disposed within a first accommodating space (Suzuki, Fig. 3, 22b, P. 0069) in a battery coupling portion of the housing (Suzuki, Fig. 3, 22c). Such arrangement allows for the housing of the battery powered tool to have smaller dimensions (Suzuki, P. 0090, 0092, 0094 and 0096-0097).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device as taught by McCue to include a circuit in an accommodating space in the battery coupling portion as taught by Suzuki as doing so allows for the housing to be made smaller.
Fukinuki further teaches a battery coupling portion (Fukinuki, Fig. 6, 114) provided with an air inlet (Fukinuki, Fig. 6, 11a), a motor housing portion (Fukinuki, Fig. 2, 111) provided with an air outlet (Fukinuki, Fig. 2, 11b), wherein airflow enters the air inlet, passes the circuit and motor, then exits out of the air outlet (Fukinuki, P. 0052 and 0053). Providing a set of air inlets and air outlets allows for the motor and circuit board to be cooled at the same time and while improving cool for the device (Fukinuki, P. 0052-0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue to include an air outlet and an air inlet that allow cooling for the circuit board and motor as further taught by Fukinuki as doing so allows for both components to be cooled simultaneously improving the cooling of the device.
PNG
media_image3.png
718
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 24-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue et al. (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Madson (US 9,815,220 B2).
Regarding claim 12, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, wherein a height of the lower end surface in an up-down direction is less than or equal to a height of a lower edge of the central portion in the up-down direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (McCue) below), as can be seen in Fig. 1 and the annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 of McCue the lower end surface of the battery pack is less than or equal to the height of the lower edge of the central portion in an up-down direction.
McCue does not teach wherein the battery pack comprises at least one lower end surface parallel to a working level when the battery pack is coupled to the battery coupling portion.
Madson teaches wherein the battery pack (Madson, Fig. 2, 26) comprises at least one lower end surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) below) parallel to a working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) below) when the battery pack is coupled to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) below). This allows the device be placed on a flat even surface (Madson, Col. 7, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue such that the battery pack comprises at least one lower end surface parallel to a working level when the battery pack is coupled to the battery coupling portion as taught by Madson as to allow the device to sit flat on an even surface when the battery is coupled to the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
451
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
354
781
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68) is mountable to the battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 64, P. 0024).
McCue does not teach wherein the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion with an end surface parallel to a working level and facing a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw, and the end surface is configured to support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level.
Madson teaches a chainsaw (Madson, Fig. 8-13, 200) wherein the battery pack (Madson, Fig. 2, 26) comprises an end surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) parallel with a working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) when the battery pack is coupled to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) and facing a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), and the end surface is configured to support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), the end surface of the battery pack taught by Madson is capable of supporting the chainsaw as shown in Fig. 10. This allows the device be placed on a flat even surface (Madson, Col. 7, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue such that the battery comprised a lower end surface parallel with the working level when coupled to the battery coupling portion and such that the end surface faces a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw as taught by Madson as to allow the device to sit flat on an even surface when the battery is coupled to the device.
Regarding claim 25, McCue in view of Madson teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 24, wherein a portion of the housing protrudes downward to form a protruding structure (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), and the protruding structure together with the end surface of the battery pack collectively support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above).
Regarding claim 26, McCue teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 5, wherein the battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68) is mountable to the battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 64, P. 0024), a gripping region, as the applicant does not define a gripping region the broadest reasonable interpretation is any region of the handle capable of being gripped as such the top portion of the handle is a gripping region (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), for gripping is formed in the handle (McCue, P. 0026), and the gripping region is above the second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above).
McCue does not teach the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion along a mounting plane parallel to a flat support surface. As best understood by the Examiner, the flat support surface is the same as the working level defined in the specification. For clarity the Examiner will refer to the flat support surface as the working level henceforth.
Madson teaches a chainsaw (Madson, Fig. 8-13, 200) wherein the battery pack (Madson, Fig. 2, 26) comprises at least one lower end surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) parallel with a working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) when the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above). This allows the device be placed on a flat even surface (Madson, Col. 7, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue such that the battery comprised a lower end surface parallel with the working level when coupled to the battery coupling portion as taught by Madson as to allow the device to sit flat on an even surface when the battery is coupled to the device.
Regarding claim 27, McCue teaches a one-hand chainsaw (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 20), comprising:
a housing (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 24) comprising a main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32) and a handle (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 36);
a motor (McCue, Fig. 3, 50) provided in the main housing portion, the motor having a motor shaft (McCue, Fig. 3, 51);
a cutting device (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44), disposed along a second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), the cutting device comprising: a guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40) extending along a front-rear direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) and a saw chain (McCue, Fig. 1-3 and 5, 44); wherein the saw chain is disposed around the guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44, P. 0018), an end of the cutting device is connected to the main housing portion (McCue, P. 0018), and the cutting device is coupled to the motor shaft (McCue, P. 0021) and driven by the motor to work (McCue, P. 0022); and the guide plate is substantially symmetric about the second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above); and
a battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 64) extending from the main housing portion and disposed below the handle, the battery coupling portion of McCue is at least partially disposed below at least a portion of the handle of McCue,
wherein the battery coupling portion is configured to connect a battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68, P. 0024), wherein the battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68) is mountable to the battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 64, P. 0024), and
wherein a portion of the housing protrudes downward to form a protruding portion (McCue, Fig. 1, 88) which supports the one-hand chainsaw on the working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (McCue) above).
McCue does not teach wherein the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion with an end surface parallel to a working level and facing a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw and the protruding portion together with the end surface of the battery pack collectively support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level, and the protruding portion is located forward of the motor along the front-rear direction.
Madson teaches a chainsaw (Madson, Fig. 8-13, 200) wherein the battery pack (Madson, Fig. 2, 26) comprises an end surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) parallel with a working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) when the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) and facing a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), and the end surface is configured to support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), the end surface of the battery pack taught by Madson is capable of supporting the chainsaw as shown in Fig. 10, and wherein a portion of the housing protrudes downward to form a protruding portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) which together with the end surface of the battery pack collectively supports the one-hand chainsaw on the working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above), and the protruding portion is located forward of the motor along the front-rear direction, at least a portion of the protruding portion taught by Madson is forward of the motor (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above). This allows the device be placed on a flat even surface (Madson, Col. 7, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue such that the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion with an end surface parallel to a working level and facing a lower side of the one-hand chainsaw and the protruding portion together with the end surface of the battery pack collectively support the one-hand chainsaw on the working level, and the protruding portion is located forward of the motor along the front-rear direction like the structures taught by Madson as to allow the device to sit flat on an even surface when the battery is coupled to the device.
Regarding claim 28, McCue teaches a one-hand chainsaw (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 20), comprising:
a housing (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 24) comprising a main housing portion (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 32) and a handle (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 36), a gripping region, as the applicant does not define a gripping region the broadest reasonable interpretation is any region of the handle capable of being gripped as such the top portion of the handle is a gripping region (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above), for gripping is formed in the handle (McCue, P. 0026);
a motor (McCue, Fig. 3, 50) provided in the main housing portion, the motor having a motor shaft (McCue, Fig. 3, 51);
a cutting device (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44), the cutting device comprising: a guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40) extending along a front-rear direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above) and a saw chain (McCue, Fig. 1-3 and 5, 44); wherein the saw chain is disposed around the guide plate (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 40 and 44, P. 0018), an end of the cutting device is connected to the main housing portion (McCue, P. 0018), and the cutting device is coupled to the motor shaft (McCue, P. 0021) and driven by the motor to work (McCue, P. 0022); and
a battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 64) extending from the main housing portion and disposed below the handle, the battery coupling portion of McCue is at least partially disposed below at least a portion of the handle of McCue,
wherein the battery coupling portion is configured to connect a battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68, P. 0024), wherein the battery pack (McCue, Fig. 1-3, 68) is mountable to the battery coupling portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 64, P. 0024) and the gripping region is above the second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) above).
McCue does not teach the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion along a mounting plane parallel to a flat support surface.
Madson teaches a chainsaw (Madson, Fig. 8-13, 200) wherein the battery pack (Madson, Fig. 2, 26) comprises at least one lower end surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) parallel with a working level (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) when the battery pack is mountable to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above). This allows the device be placed on a flat even surface (Madson, Col. 7, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by McCue such that the battery comprised a lower end surface parallel with the working level when coupled to the battery coupling portion as taught by Madson as to allow the device to sit flat on an even surface when the battery is coupled to the device.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the instant disclosure has been amend as to overcome the specification objection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdrawn the objection of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art of record. The Examiner disagree, the limitation “at least half of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level” appears to be new matter, as the instant disclosure only has evidence for a portion of a projection of the handle onto a working level overlaps with a projection of the battery pack onto the working level and McCue shows at least a portion overlapping. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that due the amendments to claim 1 dependent claims 7-9 and 11 overcome the prior art of record for the same reason as claim 1. The Examiner disagrees, as the limitation the applicant asserts overcomes the prior art appears to be new matter and claims 7-9 and 11 depend from claim 1 the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and as stated above McCue discloses at least what the instant disclosure discloses. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights