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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 21 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 23 are pending, of which claims 7 and 10 are withdrawn. Regarding claim 23, which was previously withdrawn (see the Final Office action mailed 21 October 2025), in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to require at least one foot and a pair of wheels, there is minimal search and/or examination burden to examining claim 23. As such, the restriction requirement with respect to claim 23 is withdrawn and the claim is rejoined for examination. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 21 October 2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at the final paragraph recites that the at least one foot and the at least one wheel “support the power tool along a surface”. The surface is not part of the claimed structure, such that claim 1 does not encompass the power tool only in a state of being support by the surface. As such this recitation should be re-phrased to describe an ability for the at least one foot and the at least one wheel to support the power tool along a surface. The examiner suggests reciting that the at least one foot and the at least one wheel – are configured to support the power tool along a surface –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at the final paragraph recites that “the at least one wheel” supports the power tool along the surface in conjunction with the at least one foot. This recitation is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one wheel”. Instead, claim 1 previously introduces “a pair of wheels”. It is unclear whether “the at least one wheel” is referring to the pair of wheels as previously introduced, whether “the at least one wheel” is referring to one of the pair of wheels. As such, it is unclear whether claim 1 can be satisfied by a single one of the wheels supporting the power tool. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the final paragraph as if the paragraph recited – the pair of wheels – in place of “the at least one wheel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Pub. No. 2023/0330893 A1 to Sumi et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0252617 A1 to Obermann et al., US Pub. No. 2025/0087949 A1 to Kanno et al., and US Pat. No. 8,006,777 B2 to Meixner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Sumi discloses a power tool 210 (see Figs. 9-10) comprising:
a housing 14;
a trigger 30;
a motor 4 supported within the housing 14 (see paragraph 34; note also that paragraph 54 explains that the reference characters in the embodiment of Figs. 9-10 are used for “components identical to or corresponding to those of the first embodiment, and redundant explanations are omitted by incorporating the explanations described in the first embodiment”, such that paragraph 54 indicates that the housing 14 of Figs. 9-10 includes a motor just like the housing 14 having the same reference character in Fig. 1);
a saw blade 12 interconnected to the housing 14 by a support arm 14a and drivably coupled to the motor 4 (see Fig. 9 and paragraphs 34 and 54; note that the same explanation provided in the preceding paragraph is applicable to the motor 4 being drivably coupled to the saw blade 12);
a main handle 20 joined to the housing 14 (see Fig. 9);
an auxiliary handle 18 coupled to the housing 14 and disposed between the saw blade 12 and the main handle 20 (see Fig. 9);
a battery receptacle defined by the housing 14 and positioned beneath the main handle 20 (see Fig. 9, where the battery receptacle receives a front one of the two battery packs 2 beneath the main handle 20), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery pack 2 to supply electrical current to the motor 4 (see the Abstract; see also paragraphs 5, 27, and 28).
Regarding claim 2, Sumi discloses that the battery receptacle includes a first wall parallel to a surface of the housing 14 (see Fig. 9 of Sumi, where the first wall is defined by a surface immediately above the right of the two battery packs 2 under the main handle 20 in Fig. 9; this first wall is parallel to a downward facing surface through which pass the lead lines for reference characters 26 and 40 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Sumi discloses that the first wall defines a first oblique angle relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the support arm 14a (see annotated Fig. 9 below, showing a horizontal line along the first wall and an angled line through the support arm 14a; the angle between these two lines is an oblique angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Sumi discloses that the first wall is obliquely oriented relative to a handle axis defined by the main handle 20 (see the annotated Fig. 9 above; an axis passing through the main handle 20 intercepts a leftward continuation of the line along the first wall at an oblique angle).
Regarding claim 9, Sumi discloses that the main handle 20 extends from a rear portion of the housing 14 in a direction opposite the support arm 14a (see Fig. 9, where the ‘rear portion of the housing 4’ is in the vicinity of the lead line for reference character “34”, such that the ‘rear portion of the housing’ is where the handle 20 meets the housing 14; note that a housing may have more than one ‘rear portion’).
Sumi fails to explicitly disclose that the main handle is integrally formed with the housing, and Sumi also fails to disclose a splash guard integrally formed with the housing and positioned between the battery receptacle and the saw blade, the splash guard extends in a direction opposite the support arm and at least partially defines the battery receptacle; at least one foot extending from the splash guard; and a pair of wheels supported by respective wheel mounts, wherein the at least one foot and the at least one wheel support the power tool along a surface, as required by claim 1. At least for purposes of this rejection, Sumi is considered as failing to disclose that the battery receptacle includes a second wall obliquely oriented relative to the first wall as required by claim 2 and that the second wall defines a second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the support arm as required by claim 3.
Regarding the main handle being integrally formed with the housing, Obermann teaches a main handle 45 that is integrally formed with a housing 15 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 14 and 28). Obermann teaches that integrally forming the handle with the housing allows an additive to be provided throughout the handle and housing to disperse static change into the environment by providing a path for any accumulated charge to travel within the housing and handle (see paragraph 28), thus preventing the charge from being discharged to included electronics or to the user in the form of a shock electronics (see paragraphs 3-4). Moreover, integrally forming a handle with a housing is advantageous because this process reduces the number of parts required to be manufactured (i.e., a handle and housing can be formed integrally, rather than having the handle formed separately such that the handle provides one or more additional parts with respect to the housing) and simplifies assembly (i.e., since the handle is integrally formed with the housing, no separate assembly step of attaching the handle to the housing is required).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrally form the handle and housing of Sumi in view of the teachings of Obermann. This modification is advantageous because by integrally forming the handle with the housing, an additive can be placed throughout the handle and housing to provide a path for any built-up static electrical charge to disperse, thus avoiding the charge being directed to included electronics or to the user in the form of a shock. This modification is further obvious to reduce the number of parts required to manufacture the tool, which lower manufacturing and also assembling costs by reducing the number of parts that need to be manufactured and the number of assembly steps required. Finally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally form the handle and housing, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding the splash guard, before discussing the teachings of Kanno, Sumi discloses that it is desirable to protect the battery packs from moisture and dirt (see paragraph 25) and Sumi further teaches that its saw uses water in the performance of a cutting operation (see water supply connector 44; see also paragraph).
Turning to the teachings of Kanno, Kanno teaches a power tool having a splash guard that is integrally formed with a housing 102 (see the annotated Fig. 15 below and paragraph 75), and Kanno also teaches that the splash guard is positioned between a battery receptacle and a working end of the power tool (see Fig. 15, where the splash guard defines a front end of a battery receptacle for battery 20; the battery receptacle is to the left of the splash guard relative to Fig. 15 and the working end of the power tool is to the right of the splash guard, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright), where the splash guard extends in a direction opposite the working end of the power tool (i.e., the splash guard has a leftward extent when moving toward a bottom portion of the splash guard relative to Fig. 15 with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright, and the working end is to the right of the splash guard) and at least partially defines a battery receptacle (see Fig. 15 – the splash guard defines a front end of the battery receptacle). Kanno further teaches at least one foot extending from the splash guard (see the annotated Fig. 15 below, where the foot extends below the bottom surface of the battery; note that the claim makes no particular requirements of the foot, and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘foot’ includes something resembling a foot in position of use: such as a: the lower end of the leg of a chain or table and also includes the lowest part per merriam-webster.com, and the foot of Kanno meets each of these definitions because the foot of Kanno is at lowest end of the splash guard just as a foot of a leg of a chair, and also because the foot of Kanno is the lowest part). Note also that the splash guard of Kanno extends further downward than the battery 20 (see Fig. 15) [Claim 1] Kanno teaches that the battery receptacle includes a first wall (located above the battery pack 20 in Fig. 15, where the first wall is defined by battery mounting part 102c) and a second wall obliquely oriented relative to the first wall (see the annotated Fig. 15 below showing the second wall; the second wall is at an angle of slightly less than 90 degrees relative to the first wall as a result of the rearward slant of the second wall). [Claim 2] Kanno teaches that the splash guard is advantageous in order to cover and protect a front surface of the battery pack (see paragraph 78), which is especially advantageous for a battery pack that includes a ventilating window that aids in cooling the battery during charging (see paragraph 56).
PNG
media_image2.png
497
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power tool of Sumi, where a front side of the two battery packs underneath the handle 20 is exposed, with a splash guard that is integrally formed with the housing, that extends in a rearward direction away from the working end of the power tool (i.e., away from the support arm and saw blade), that extends downward further than the two battery packs, and that at least partially defines the battery receptacle in view of the teachings of Kanno. This modification is advantageous because the splash guard covers and protect the front surface of the battery packs, which is especially advantageous if the battery pack includes a ventilating window since any debris produced during cutting is unable to enter the battery pack via the ventilating window due to the protection provided by the splash guard. This modification is further obvious because Sumi desires protection of the battery packs from moisture and dust, and this modification furthers that aim by protecting the most vulnerable part of the battery packs underlying the handle ‘20’ of Sumi (the front portion being the most vulnerable due to the rotation of the blade, which drives debris, dust, moisture from the water supply, etc. in a rearward direction).
Moreover, as a result of this modification, Sumi as modified discloses: (i) that the splash guard is between the battery receptacle and the saw blade because the splash guard is provided at a front end of the battery receptacle of Sumi, which is a location between the battery receptacle and the saw blade, and (ii) that the splash guard extends in a direction opposite the support arm because the splash guard extends in a rearward direction, which is a direction opposite the support arm as disclosed by Sumi. The advantages provided by the splash guard of Kanno are further discussed in the Response to Arguments section of the Final Office action mailed 21 October 2025, which advantages are incorporated into this modification. Sumi, as modified, further discloses that the second wall of the splash guard, which extends along the front edge of the front battery ‘2’ shown in Fig. 9 of Sumi, defines a second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the support arm as required by claim 3. This feature results from the combined teachings, where the second wall of the splash guard follows the contour of the battery pack, and is thus angled slightly rearward. As can be seen in the annotated Fig. 9 provided above, which includes a line approximating the extent of the second wall for explanatory purposes, the second wall being angled slightly rearward results in the second wall being obliquely angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the support arm.
Regarding a pair wheels, Meixner a power tool 10 that includes a pair of wheels 17 supported by respective wheel mounts 14 (see Figs. 1, 3a, and 4; see also col. 2, lines 61-62 and col. 3, line 1), wherein the at least one wheel 17 supports the power tool 10 along a surface (see Fig. 1, where the unclaimed surface is underneath the tool 10; note also that a rear end of the tool 10 also supports the tool 10 on the surface). [Claim 1] Meixner teaches that providing the pair of wheels supported on the wheel mounts is advantageous in order to aid in guiding the tool and also in carrying a portion of the load of the tool (see col. 1, lines 14-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power tool of Sumi with a pair of wheels supported by respective wheel mounts, where a rear portion of the power tool and the at least one wheel support the power tool along a surface, in view of the teachings of Meixner. This modification is advantageous because the wheels are able to roll along a surface underlying the tool to guide the tool during operation, and also because the wheels are able to carry a portion of the load of the tool such that less exertion is required of the operator.
Finally, Sumi, as thus modified above, discloses that the at least one foot and the at least one wheel support the power tool along a surface as required by claim 1. As explained above with respect to the splash guard, when Sumi is provided with a splash guard, the splash guard upon which the at least one foot is located extends lower than the batteries. Thus, the foot on the splash guard defines a lower-most portion of the power tool at a rear end of the power tool. As explained above with respect to the wheels, when Sumi is provided with at least one wheel, the at least one wheel supports the power tool on an underlying support surface. Thus, Sumi, as modified above, discloses that the at least one foot and the at least one wheel support the power tool on a surface since the at least one foot supports a rear portion of the power tool and the at least one wheel supports a further forward portion of the tool. The combined teaches of the references disclose the features of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sumi as modified by Obermann, Kanno, and Meixner as applied to claim 3, and further in view of GB 2588831 A to Donson et al.
Regarding claim 4, Sumi, as modified, discloses that the first oblique angle is an angle between 90 and 180 degrees whose exact magnitude is not disclosed (see the annotated Fig. 9 of Sumi below), and the second oblique angle is an angle between 0 and 90 degrees whose exact magnitude is not disclosed (see the annotated Fig. 9 of Sumi below, where the second oblique angle is indicated for explanatory purposes).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because Sumi, as modified, fails to disclose the exact angle of magnitudes of the first and second oblique angles, Sumi, as modified, fails to disclose that the first oblique angle is exactly 140 degrees and the second oblique angle is exactly 80 degrees as required by claim 4.
However, Donson teaches that the angle of a support arm (i.e., the angle of the longitudinal axis Y-Y of the support arm of Donson as shown in Fig. 3) is selectable in order to achieve the result of balancing a power tool on a support surface (see page 7, lines 31-33 and Fig. 7a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the angle of the longitudinal axis, thus varying the magnitudes of the first and second oblique angles.
Because Donson teaches selecting the angle of a support arm of a power tool to achieve a result of being able to rest the power tool on a surface, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter the angle of the support arm of Sumi, as modified, including selecting an angle of the support arm such that the first and second oblique angles are 140 and 80 degrees, respectively, because discovering an optimum geometry of the power tool would have been a mere design consideration based on achieving an ability to rest the tool on an underlying support. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, an angle of the support arm) involves only routine skill in the art.
Further still, the selection of the particular magnitudes required by claim 4 are merely a change in form or shape that is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A designer of the power tool of Sumi must select some geometry of the power tool, including selecting magnitudes of the first and second oblique angles, such that these angles are merely a design choice that every tool designer must consider. The form and shape of the battery receptacle, which determines the angles of the walls, are variable.
Moreover, the present application does not provide any criticality to the particular angles recited in claim 4. For example, there is no evidence that the first oblique angle being 80 degrees rather than, say, 75 degrees achieves any particular unexpected result. The examiner suggests providing evidence of the criticality of the angles required by claim 4 to overcome this rejection. For these reasons, the features of claim 4 are obvious.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sumi as modified by Obermann, Kanno, and Meixner as applied to claim 5 above, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 5,466,183 to Kirn et al.
Regarding claim 6, Sumi, as modified, discloses that the first wall defines an angle of greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees relative to the handle axis, where the exact magnitude of the angle is not disclosed (see the annotated Fig. 9 of Sumi provided above with respect to claim 4).
Because Sumi, as modified, fails to disclose the exact angle of magnitude between the first wall and the handle axis, Sumi, as modified, fails to disclose that the angle is exactly 34 degrees as required by claim 6.
Kirn, though, teaches that the angle of a handle axis relative to a device axis is a result effective variable, where the angle of the handle axis is selected for ergonomic reasons (see col. 1, lines 20-24).
Therefore, since Kirn teaches that the angle of a handle axis is a result effective variable, where the angle of the handle axis is selected for ergonomic reasons, and since Sumi, as modified, already discloses an acute angle between the first wall and handle axis, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the angle between the handle axis and the first wall of Sumi as modified to be 34 degrees as required by claim 6 because discovering an optimum angle would have been a mere design consideration based on ergonomic considerations. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), in particular in view of Sumi, as modified, already disclosing an acute angle of unspecified magnitude between the handle axis and the first wall. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore,
Moreover, the present application does not provide any criticality to the particular angle recited in claim 6. For example, there is no evidence that the angle of the first wall relative to the handle axis being exactly 34 degrees rather than, say, 25 degrees achieves any particular unexpected result. The examiner suggests providing evidence of the criticality of the angle required by claim 6 to overcome this rejection.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sumi as modified by Obermann, Kanno, and Meixner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Design Pat. No. D533,757 S to Arvidsson et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2009/0283286 A1 to Hoffmann et al.
Regarding claim 23, Sumi, as modified, discloses that the at least one foot is a first foot (see the rejection of claim 1 above, where the splash guard provided to Sumi includes a foot).
Sumi, as modified, fails to disclose a second food extending from the splash guard. Still, the splash guard of Sumi, as modified, extends below the battery packs and thus defines a surface (including the first foot) that is positioned to rest against an underlying support surface.
Arvidsson teaches providing a support surface of a power tool with a plurality of feet (see the annotated Fig. below). Providing a plurality of feet on a support surface increases frictional resistance to sliding, in particular in a direction perpendicular to the in-and-out of the page direction relative to Fig. 45 of Arvidsson, because providing a plurality of feet provides additional edges that are able to resist sliding movement. Moreover, it is known in the art to provide feet at a rear portion of a power tool (see Hoffmann at Fig. 1, feet underlie the handle 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
332
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the splash guard of Sumi, as modified, with a plurality of feet as taught by Arvidsson. This modification is advantageous because the splash guard of Sumi, as modified, extends below the batteries of the power tool to provide a support surface contacting portion. Arvidsson teaches providing a support surface contact portion with a plurality of feet, where the feet are advantageous to provide additional edges that enhance resistance to sliding. Thus, this modification improves stability of the power tool when resting on a support surface. Hoffmann provides further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since Hoffmann teaches that it is known to provide feet not only at a front portion of a housing of a power tool, but also near to a rear of the power tool. Finally, this modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art, as explained above, discloses each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the feet of Arvidsson with the power tool of Sumi, as modified, by providing the support-surface contacting portion of the splash guard of Sumi, as modified, with a plurality of feet as taught by Arvidsson, and in this combination each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately (the splash guard continues to guard the batteries against debris and support the power tool, and the feet continue to enhance contact between the power tool and the underlying surface). Further, Hoffmann is evidence that the results of this combination were predictable, since Hoffmann discloses feet at front and rear portions of a housing of a power tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 being rejected under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724