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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5, and 11 and the cancellation of claims 4, 10, and 16-20.
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:
Regarding the “motor shaft” of claim 1, the motor shaft as claimed is not disclosed by the instant specification. While it is shown in the drawings, it is neither labeled with a reference character in the drawings or referred to in the specification. To provide proper antecedent basis for the claim the specification should be amended and a reference character should be included. However, no new matter should be included.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 12-14 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) and Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0111582).
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), 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
a circuit board 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 handle is disposed along a first straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) below), the cutting device is disposed along a second straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) below), the motor shaft is disposed along a third straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (McCue) below), 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) below), 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) below), the circuit board has a planar surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (McCue) below), and the planar surface is above the second straight line, and on the third straight line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (McCue) below).
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. McCue, further, does not teach the battery coupling portion having a first accommodating space, the circuit board disposed in the first accommodating space, and the planar surface of the circuit board being below the second straight line, rearward of the third straight line, and parallel to the mounting plane.
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) below) parallel with 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.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention 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.
McCue in view of Madson does not teach the battery coupling portion having a first accommodating space and the circuit board disposed in the first accommodating space.
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 the 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 to modify the device as taught by McCue in view of Madson 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.
McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki does not teach the planar surface of the circuit board being below the second straight line, rearward of the third straight line, and parallel to the mounting plane.
As the planar surface of the circuit board being below the second straight line, rearward of the third straight line, and parallel to the mounting plane is a recitation of a relative position and orientation of the circuit board in relation to lines or planes defined by the relative positioning of other known structures and both McCue and Suzuki teach it is known to position a circuit board in different positions and orientations relative to known structures without altering the function of the circuit board. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by McCue in view Madson and Suzuki such as to position and orient the circuit board below the second straight line, rearward of the third straight line, and parallel to the mounting plane or in any other desirable orientation or position as such a rearrangement of part is well within the level of ordinary skill for a worker in the art as an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
391
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
718
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
716
1010
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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) 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_image5.png
894
876
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches 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 in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1, wherein 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 in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches 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 12, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, 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 to the support surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above noted as a working level) when the battery pack is coupled to the battery coupling portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Madson) above) and 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) above), 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.
Regarding claim 13, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches 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 in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Madson (US 9,815,220 B2) and Suzuki (US 2019/0111582) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amano et al. (US 5,685,080 A).
Regarding claim 7, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 to modify one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 Madson (US 9,815,220 B2) and Suzuki (US 2019/0111582) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brotto et al. (US 2007/0240892 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1.
McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 to modify the one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 1 that has a volume that’s dimension is undisclosed (McCue, Fig. 1-4, 20).
McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 to modify the one-hand chainsaw taught by McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 Madson (US 9,815,220 B2) and Suzuki (US 2019/0111582) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukinuki et al. (US 2020/0376705 A1).
Regarding claim 11, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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), the central portion is connected to the battery coupling portion through a handle guard portion (McCue, Fig. 2, 88).
McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki does not teach 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.
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 to modify the device taught by McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki 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 allow both components to be cooled simultaneously and as it improves the cooling of the device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCue (US 2021/0154879 A1) in view of Madson (US 9,815,220 B2) and Suzuki (US 2019/0111582) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bross (US 4,198,752 A) and Mang et al. (US 2018/0133818 A1).
Regarding claim 15, McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki teaches the one-hand chainsaw according to claim 2, wherein an upper end of the motor housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above) is recessed and concave to form a first holding groove (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above), a first end of the first holding groove and a second end of the first holding groove protrude outward from the motor housing portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (McCue) above).
McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki does not teach a first side of the motor housing portion proximate the second end of the first holding groove and a second side of the motor housing portion proximate the second end of the first holding groove each form an air outlet. While McCue may have air vents, such vents are not clearly shown or disclosed.
Bross teaches a chain saw (Bross, Fig. 1-5) with a housing (Bross, Fig. 1-5, 10) featuring vent (Bross, Fig. 1 and 5, 85) which allows for discharge of exhaust gases or to allow airflow (Bross, Col. 4, lines 47-50 and Col. 6, lines 1-4).
Mang teaches a one-hand chainsaw (Mang, Fig. 1-6, 1) with a motor housing portion (Mang, Fig. 1-6, 4), wherein a first side of the motor housing portion proximate the second end of the first holding groove and a second side of the motor housing portion proximate the second end of the first holding groove each form an air outlet (see annotated images 1 of Fig. 1, 1 of Fig. 2, and 1 of Fig. 3 (Mang) below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki such that the motor housing portion includes air outlets or vents on each side of the housing as taught by Mang as doing so allows for airflow about the motor as taught by Bross.
PNG
media_image6.png
422
607
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
380
662
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
323
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the prior art of McCue in view of Madson and Fukinuki fails to teach a circuit board parallel to the mounting plane as the instant invention is not in line with both the motor and battery and the currently amended claims are now not obvious over the prior art. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claims an updated prior art rejection for claim 1 is provided above. The limitation as issue no longer being rejected over McCue in view of Madson and Fukinuki and is now rejected over McCue in view of Madson and Suzuki.
Conclusion
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