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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 10/14/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 18-19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-17, 20-23, and 26-27 are pending and examined below.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references Tam (11,318,597) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451). Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5, the embodiment shown in Figures 29-30, in the reply filed on 12/16/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a guide configured to guide cover” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as a slope (201A) of the housing tab (201) in paragraph 99 of the Specification;
“a front-rear restrictor configured to restrict front-rear movement” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as the front surface (201b) of the hosing tab (201) in paragraph 100 of the Specification; and
“a circumferential restrictor configured to restrict circumferential movement” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as the hook (202) in paragraph 101 of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 27 line 3, the phrase “of said element, and the part of the front-rear” appears to be a typographical error and should be written as “of said element, the part of the front-rear”.
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, 15, and 27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “without a fastener fixing the rear cover to the motor compartment” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the cover is fixed to the motor compartment. The term “fastener” is understood to be a device that secures an object to another object. Prior to the quoted phrase, the rear cover is disclosed to “fixed to the motor compartment”. It is unclear how the rear cover is fixed to the motor compartment without any device to secure said rear cover to the motor compartment. For examining purposes, prior art that discloses the rear cover is fixed to the motor compartment is interpreted to read on the feature.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “without a fastener fixing the rear cover to the left and right motor compartments” renders claim 15 vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the cover is fixed to the motor compartment. The term “fastener” is understood to be a device that secures an object to another object. Prior to the quote phrase, the rear cover is disclosed to “fastened to the left motor compartment and the right motor compartment”. It is unclear how the rear cover is fastened to the left and right motor compartments without any device to secure said rear cover to the motor compartment. For examining purposes, prior art that discloses the rear cover is fastened to the left and right motor compartments is interpreted to read on the feature.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “with a rotational axis of the rotor” renders claim 27 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is a new or previously mentioned feature. When a new feature is introduced, the feature should be preceded by “a”. When a previous feature is being referred to, the feature should be preceded by "the" or "said". Claim 27 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 disclose the rotor is rotatable about a rotation axis. It is unclear if the rotation axis of claim 27 is the same or different from the rotation axis of claim 1. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “with the rotation axis of the rotor”.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “the sloped surface intersects with a rotational axis of the rotor at an angle” also renders claim 27 vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the surface interests the rational axis. Claim 27 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 disclose the rotor defines the rotation axis. It is unclear how the sloped surface intersects the rotor of the motor. For examining purpose, the phrase is interpreted as “the sloped surface defines a plane that intersects with the rotation axis of the rotor at an angle”.
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.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352).
Regarding claim 15, Weber et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising:
a motor (42) including a rotor (50) and a stator (46),
wherein the rotor (50) being rotatable about a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction;
an output unit (200) located frontward from the motor (42) and rotatable in response to a rotational force from the rotor (50);
a left motor compartment (18) and a right motor compartment (18) accommodating the motor (42);
a grip (26) extending downward from the left motor compartment (18) and the right motor compartment (18);
a rear rotor bearing (102) supporting a rear portion of the rotor (50); and
a rear cover (30) fastened to the left motor compartment (18) and the right motor compartment (18) is fastened together only through detachable and re-attachable engagement with a rear of the left motor compartment (18) and a rear of the right motor compartment (18), and
wherein the rear cover (30) holds the rear rotor bearing (102).
(Figure 1, 3 and Page 2 paragraph 25, 26, 28, Page 3 paragraph 33, 35)
On page 2 paragraph 25, Weber et al. disclose the motor housing (18) is defined by cooperating clamshell halves. Therefore, the first clamshell half is interpreted as the left motor compartment, and the second clamshell half is interpreted as the right motor compartment.
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.
Claims 1 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) in view of reference Tam (11,318,597).
Regarding claim 1, Weber et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising:
a motor (42) including a rotor (50) and a stator (46),
wherein the rotor (50) being rotatable about a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction;
an output unit (200) located frontward from the motor (42) and rotatable in response to a rotational force from the rotor (50);
a motor compartment (18) accommodating the motor (42);
a grip (26) extending downward from the motor compartment (18);
a rear rotor bearing (102) supporting a rear portion of the rotor (50); and
a rear cover (30) covering an opening at a rear end of the motor compartment (18),
wherein the rear cover (30) holds the rear rotor bearing (102).
(Figure 1, 3 and Page 2 paragraph 25, 26, 28, Page 3 paragraph 33, 35)
However, Weber et al. do not disclose a guide, a front-rear restrictor, and a circumferential restrictor, wherein the rear cover is fixed to the motor compartment only via detachable and re-attachable engagement with the front-rear restrictor and the circumferential restrictor of the motor compartment.
Tam discloses a power tool comprising:
a motor compartment (11);
a grip (12) extending downward from the motor compartment (11); and
an element (110) fixed to the motor compartment (11),
wherein the motor compartment includes:
a guide (col 2 ln 53) configured to guide the element (110) in a first circumferential direction and frontward;
a front-rear restrictor (26) configured to restrict front-rear movement of the element (110); and
a circumferential restrictor (27) configured to restrict circumferential movement of the element (110) being restricted form the front-rear movement, and
wherein the element is fixed to the motor compartment (11) only via detachable and re-attachable engagement with the front-rear restrictor (26) and the circumferential restrictor (27) of the motor compartment (11).
(Figure 3, 5, 6 and Column 2 lines 52-55, Column 4 liens 59-63, Column 5 lines 45-60, Column 6 lines 9-17)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the motor compartment and rear cover of Weber et al. by incorporating the guide, front-rear restrictor, and circumferential restrictor as taught by Tam, since column 1 lines 44-46 states such a modification would allow for readily detachment and re-attachment of the rear cover without the need for hand tools.
Regarding claim 27, Weber et al. modified by Tam disclose the guide (Tam – col 2 ln 53) and a part of the front-rear restrictor (Tam – 26) are integrally formed as one continuous element,
wherein the guide (Tam – col 2 ln 53) being a sloped surface,
wherein the part of the front-rear restrictor (Tam – 26) being a flat surface of said element,
wherein the sloped surface defines a plane that intersects with the rotation axis of the rotor (Weber et al. – 50) at an angle, and
wherein the flat surface defines a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis of the rotor (Weber et al. – 50).
(Figure 6 and Column 2 lines 52-55, Column 6 lines 9-17)
Claims 16-17, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) in view of reference McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451).
Regarding claim 20, Weber et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising:
a motor (42) including a rotor (50) and a stator (46),
wherein the rotor (50) being rotatable about a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction;
an output unit (200) located frontward from the motor (42) and rotatable in response to a rotational force from the rotor (50);
a motor compartment (18) accommodating the motor (42);
a rear rotor bearing (102) supporting a rear portion of the rotor (50); and
a first rear cover (30) covering an opening at a rear end of the motor compartment (18),
wherein the rear cover (30) holds the rear rotor bearing (102).
(Figure 1, 3 and Page 2 paragraph 25, 26, 28, Page 3 paragraph 33, 35)
However, Weber et al. do not disclose a second rear cover different from the first rear cover in shape, and different from the first rear cover in color and/or material composition.
McCallops et al. disclose a power tool (110) comprising: a housing (130); and an element (160) removably attach to the housing (130), wherein the element (160) can be interchanged with another element of a different shape. (Column 5 lines 8-14)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first rear cover of Weber et al. by incorporating a second rear cover that is interchangeable with the first rear cover and is different in shape as taught by McCallops et al., since column 5 lines 8-14 of McCallops et al. states such a modification would allow the operated to choose the desired part.
Yoshimizu et al. disclose a power tool (1) comprising a first cover element (31), wherein the first cover element (31) is replaceable with a second cover different from the first cover element (31) in color. (Figure 3, 4 and Column 5 lines 24-26, Column 6 lines 3-6, 44-48)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Weber et al. by incorporating a second rear cover different in shape of the first cover as taught by Yoshimizu et al., since column 2 lines 1-3 of Yoshimizu et al. states such a modification would help prevent tools form being mistakenly used by others.
Regarding claim 22, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18) includes a left motor compartment and a right motor compartment; wherein the power tool (Weber et al. – 10) further comprises a grip (Weber et al. – 26) extending downward from the left motor compartment and the right motor compartment, wherein the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) fastened to the left motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18) and the right motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18) is fastened together only through engagement with a rear of the left motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18) and a rear of the right motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18), and wherein the rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) holds the rear rotor bearing (Weber et al. – 102). (Weber et al. – Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 25)
Regarding claim 16, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the left motor compartment and the right motor compartment are fastened together with plurality of screws, and the plurality of screws are located frontward form a rotor core in the rotor. (Weber et al. – Figure 1, 2 and Page 2 paragraph 25)
Regarding claim 17, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) is located on a left of the left motor compartment and a right of the right motor compartment to prevent separation between the rear of the left motor compartment and the rear of the right motor compartment. (Weber et al. – Figure 2, 7)
[AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Weber et al.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
428
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) includes outlets (Weber et al. – see figure 6 above) elongated in a vertical direction in a left and right side surfaces of the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30). (Weber et al. – Figures 3, 6)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) in view of reference McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of reference Tam (11,318,597).
Regarding claim 21, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose a grip (Weber et al. – 26) extending downward from the motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18). (Weber et al. – Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 25)
However, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. do not disclose a guide, a front-rear restrictor, and a circumferential restrictor.
Tam discloses a power tool comprising:
a motor compartment (11);
a grip (12) extending downward from the motor compartment (11); and
an element (110) fixed to the motor compartment (11),
wherein the motor compartment includes:
a guide (col 2 ln 53) configured to guide the element (110) in a first circumferential direction and frontward;
a front-rear restrictor (26) configured to restrict front-rear movement of the element (110); and
a circumferential restrictor (27) configured to restrict circumferential movement of the element (110) being restricted form the front-rear movement, and
wherein the element is fixed to the motor compartment (11) only via detachable and re-attachable engagement with the front-rear restrictor (26) and the circumferential restrictor (27) of the motor compartment (11).
(Figure 3, 5, 6 and Column 2 lines 52-55, Column 4 liens 59-63, Column 5 lines 45-60, Column 6 lines 9-17)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the motor compartment and rear cover of Weber et al. by incorporating the guide, front-rear restrictor, and circumferential restrictor as taught by Tam, since column 1 lines 44-46 states such a modification would allow for readily detachment and re-attachment of the rear cover without the need for hand tools.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) in view of reference McCallops et al. (6,547,014), Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451), and Tam (11,318,597) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of reference Wellman et al. (7,097,058).
Regarding claim 2, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tam disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a housing cylinder.
Wellman et al. disclose an arrangement comprising: an element (10) including an open end; and a cover (12), wherein the element (10) comprises:
a guide (32) configured to guide the cover (12) in a first circumferential direction and frontward;
a front-rear restrictor (36) configured to restrict front-rear movement of the cover being guided by the guide (32);
a circumferential restrictor (42) configured to restrict circumferential movement of the cover being restricted form the front-rear movement;
a support surface (24) surrounding a rotation axis and facing rearward;
a housing cylinder (22) protruding rearward from the support surface (24) and defining the open end; and
a housing tab (30) protruding radially outward from an outer circumferential surface of the housing cylinder (22).
(Figure 8, 10C and Column 5 lines 58-62, Column 6 lines 5-11, 33-35)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the motor compartment and rear cover of Weber et al. by incorporating the tab and housing cylinder as taught by Wellman et al., since column 6 lines 43-47 of Wellman et al. states such a modification would prevent accidental detachment of the cover.
Regarding claim 3, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the housing tab (Wellman et al. – 30) has a slope (Wellman et al. – 32) sloping frontward in the first circumferential direction, and the guide includes the slope (Wellman et al. – 32). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 4, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the front-rear restrictor (Wellman et al. – 36) is at least partially located on the housing tab (Wellman et al. – 30). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 5 lines 58-62)
Regarding claim 5, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the housing tab (Wellman et al. – 30) has a front surface facing frontward, wherein the front-rear restrictor (Wellman et al. – 36) includes the front surface, and wherein the front surface restricts rearward movement of the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 6, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the support surface (Wellman et al. – 24) surrounds the housing cylinder (Wellman et al. – 22), wherein the front surface faces the support surface (Wellman et al. – 24) with a space in between, wherein the front-rear restrictor (Wellman et al. – 36) includes the support surface (Wellman et al. – 24), and wherein the support surface (Wellman et al. – 24) restricts frontward movement of the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 7, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) includes a cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34) in contract with the housing tab (Wellman et al. – 30), wherein the cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34) is guided along the slope (Wellman et al. – 32) and is located between the front surface and the support surface (Wellman et al. – 24). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 8, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) includes a cover cylinder (Wellman et al. – 26) surrounding the housing cylinder (Wellman et al. – 22), wherein the cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34) is located on an inner circumferential surface of the cover cylinder (Wellman et al. – 26). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 9, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose a plurality of the housing tab (Wellman et al. – 30) are located circumferentially at intervals, and a plurality of the cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34) are located circumferentially at intervals. (Wellman et al. – Figures 9A, 9B)
Regarding claim 10, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the first rear cover (Weber et al. – 30) includes a cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34) being guided by the guide (Wellman et al. – 32). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 11, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the front-rear restrictor (Wellman et al. – 36) restricts front-rear movement of the cover tab (Wellman et al. – 34). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 12, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the circumferential restrictor (Wellman et al. – 42) is at a position different from the position of the front-rear restrictor (Wellman et al. – 36). (Wellman et al. – Figure 8 and Column 6 lines 33-36)
Regarding claim 13, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the circumferential restrictor (Wellman et al. – 42) includes a hook including a hook portion (Wellman et al. – see figure 10C below) hooked on an engagement portion (Wellman et al. – 44) of the rear cover (Weber et al. – 30). (Wellman et al. – Figure 10C, 11C and Column 6 lines 33-41)
[AltContent: textbox (Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Basel End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (McCallops et al.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
155
148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., Tam, and Wellman et al. disclose the hook includes an arm (Wellman et al. – see figure 10C above) having a basal end (Wellman et al. – see figure 10C above) fixed to the motor compartment (Weber et al. – 18) and a distal end including the hook portion (Wellman et al. – see figure 10C above). (Wellman et al. – Figure 10C)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) in view of reference McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of reference Tsuruta et al. (7,093,951).
Regarding claim 26, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the second cover includes a luminous material.
Tsuruta et al. disclose a power tool (1) comprising housing (6); and a cover portion (14), wherein the cover portion (14) is detachable and re-attachable, and wherein the cover portion (14) includes luminous material. (Column 3 lines 43-49)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the second cover of Weber in view of McCallops et al. by incorporating the luminous material as taught by Tsuruta et al., since column 1 lines 40-44 of Tsuruta et al. states such a modification would ensure the power tool is visible after long-sustained used in the dark.
When incorporating the luminous material, the second rear cover is interpreted to have a material composition that is different from the first rear cover. Therefore, Weber et al. modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tsuruta et al. disclose the second rear cover is different from the first rear cover in all of the shape, the color, and the material composition.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 10/14/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 18-19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-17, 20-23, and 26-27 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the objections towards the Drawing, in view of the arguments, the Drawing objections are withdrawn.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
That is, the alleged rear cover 30 is fastened by a plurality of fasteners 162 (i.e. screws 162) and is not fixed to the alleged motor compartment 18 only through engagements with the movement restrictors on the back of the motor compartment without fasteners (screws). Thus Weber fails to disclose or suggest the above-quoted claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., without screws) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 15, the rear cover is disclosed to be “fastened to the left motor compartment and the right motor compartment”. It is unclear how the rear cover is fastened to the left and right motor compartments without any fastener.
Furthermore, the term “fastener” is understood to be a device that secures an object to another object. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “fastener” can be interpreted as a screw, a bolt, adhesive, a hook, or a similar device that secures objects together. It is unclear how the rear cover is fastened to the left and right motor compartments without any device to secure said rear cover to the motor compartment.
For examining purposes, prior art that discloses the rear cover is fastened to the left and right motor compartments is interpreted to read on the feature. Therefore, Weber et al. do read on the interpreted feature.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) modified by reference Wellman et al. (7,097,058), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) modified by references Tam (11,318,597) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451). Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 February 5, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731