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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 Oct 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to such that” in line 11 should read “configured such that”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvine (US 10850428, previously cited) in view of Mall (US 2106033, previously cited) and Dubnicka (US 2023/0286192, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Irvine teaches a cutting machine that cuts a structure by pressing a disk-shaped blade (7) against the structure while rotating the blade, comprising: a machine body (3) having wheels (21, 22) and rotatably supporting the blade (col 5, lines 63-66); a tank (1) that stores water to be supplied to the blade for cooling the blade (col 8, lines 31-38); and a motor (2) for rotationally driving the blade (col 6, lines 52-56).
Irvine does not teach the tank and motor are arranged such that the tank includes a first part located over the motor, or a second part located over a battery. However, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.). Furthermore, Mall teaches a cutting machine including a tank (12; note that the water tank 12 of Mall is occasionally erroneously referred to as element 18 and is mislabeled as element 18 in fig 3. The labeling in figs 1 and 2 as element 12 is correct) and a motor (10) arranged such that the tank includes a first part (see annotated fig below) located over the motor to cover the motor, and a second part, wherein the tank is configured such that a lower end of the first part is positioned above an upper end of the motor in an up-and-down direction of the cutting machine, and a lower end of the second part is positioned below the upper end of the motor in the up-and-down direction (as shown in annotated fig below). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the motor and tank of Irvine such that the tank includes a first part with a lower end positioned above and covering the motor, and a second part configured such that a lower end of the second part is positioned below an upper end of the motor in an up and down direction, as an arrangement with the tank above and covering the motor allows the tank to be easily removed without interfering with the machine operation as taught by Mall (p 1, col 1, lines 24-30; p 2, col 1, lines 3-12).
Irvine does not teach a battery arranged behind the motor in a front-and-rear direction, where the second part of the tank is located over the battery to cover the battery. Dubnicka teaches a cutting machine including a battery (135) that stores electric power to be supplied to the motor ([0038]) and is arranged on the same machine as a motor (described [0038]) and a tank (920 in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery and electric motor in the machine of Irvine, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing rechargeable power for the machine as taught by Dubnicka ([0038]). While neither reference explicitly teaches arranging the battery behind the motor (though this is implied by Dubnicka, which shows the battery being behind the section of the machine with the cutting wheel as shown in fig 2) or with the second part of the tank located over the battery, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the battery of Dubnicka on the cutting machine of Irvine such that the battery is behind the motor and the second part of the tank is located over the battery, as this would not change the operation of the device, the battery still achieving its intended function of powering an electric motor of the cutting machine.
Regarding claims 2 and 5-7, Irvine, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mall further teaches the tank and motor (when using the arrangement taught by Mall and rendered obvious as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) are arranged such that the entire motor overlaps the first part of the tank in a top view of the cutting machine (p 2, col 1, lines 3-6; as can be seen in figs 1-3, entire upper end of motor is overlapped by tank); wherein a rear end of the tank is positioned behind a rear end of the motor in the front-and-rear direction of the cutting machine (left side of tank is behind motor as viewed in fig 3); a front end of the tank is positioned in front of a front end of the motor in the front-and-rear direction of the cutting machine (right side of tank is in front of motor as viewed in fig 3); a rear end of the tank is positioned behind a rear end of the blade in the front-and-rear direction of the cutting machine (rear end of tank is the rearmost part of the machine as viewed in fig 3 of Mall; when applied to Irvine this would be behind a rear end of the blade which is near the front of the machine).
Regarding claim 8, Irvine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Irvine does not teach a battery that stores electric power to be supplied to the motor. Dubnicka further teaches the battery (135; included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) is configured such that an operator can attach and detach the battery to and from the machine body from a rear part of the machine body (battery shown labeled in fig 3 and shown unlabeled in fig 2 at rear of machine body; described [0038]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Irvine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Dubnicka further teaches the battery (included as described in the rejection of claim 8 as described above) is arranged on the same machine as a tank (920 in fig 1) such as the tank (1) of Irvine. While neither reference explicitly teaches arranging the battery and tank such that the tank and the battery at least partially overlap each other in a top view of the cutting machine, or a rear end of the battery is positioned behind a rear end of the tank in a front-and-rear direction of the cutting machine, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the battery of Dubnicka on the cutting machine of Irvine such that the tank and the battery at least partially overlap each other in a top view of the cutting machine, or a rear end of the battery is positioned behind a rear end of the tank in a front-and-rear direction of the cutting machine, as this would not change the operation of the device, the battery still achieving its intended function of powering an electric motor of the cutting machine.
Regarding claim 11, Irvine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Dubnicka further teaches the battery (included as described in the rejection of claim 8 as described above) is arranged to be inclined backward such that an upper end of the battery is positioned behind a lower end of the battery (as shown in fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Irvine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Irvine further teaches the cutting machine is a hand push type work machine having a handle (5) gripped by an operator (col 6, lines 18-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvine, Mall, and Dubnicka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imayoshi (US 2024/0359244, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Irvine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Irvine does not teach a power controller configured to control power to be supplied to the motor between the tank and motor. Imayoshi teaches a cutting machine including a power controller (70) configured to control power to be supplied to a motor ([0069], [0108]), wherein the power controller is arranged directly above the motor (fig 4). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a power controller in the apparatus of Irvine arranged directly above the motor (resulting in the power controller being arranged between the first part of the tank and motor and covered by the first part of the tank when the vertical tank positioning of Mall is applied as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), as providing a separate power controller allows for performing various controls of the motor in response to a user input, and its location above the motor allows for the motor to be optimally sized as taught by Imayoshi ([0046], [0069], [0108]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 Sep 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Irvine and Mall do not teach the tank including first and second parts located over the motor and battery. However, as detailed in the rejection above, Mall clearly discloses a tank with a first part located over the motor, and having a second part below the upper end of the motor. Additionally, Dubnicka renders obvious the use of a battery for storing electric power for a motor on a cutting machine as detailed in the rejection above. As rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.), and the location of the battery being under the first part of the tank would not modify the operation of the device, the precise location of the battery is seen as an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112b.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723