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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification (24 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a switching element configured to control current supplied to the electric motor in claims 7 and 10 because the “element” uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “configured to control…” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the “switching” prior the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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 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 13 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.
In claim 13 is the term “substantially in a line”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially in a line” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially a line” and “not in a line”.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang et al (US 2018/0133818) hereinafter Mang in view Markus et al (US 2023/0211519) hereinafter Markus.
Regarding claim 1, Mang shows a working machine (Figure 1) comprising:
a working unit (19, 20, Figure 4) having a longitudinal direction in a front-back direction (Figure 4);
an electric motor (5) configured to drive the working unit;
a control unit (Para. 51 “the electronics…to an actuating element”) configured to control the electric motor;
a housing (housing 4, Figure 1) including a housing body (body of the housing) and a grip (6), wherein the housing body holds the working unit and houses the electric motor and the control unit and the grip extends from the housing body (Figure 1) and is configured to be grasped by a user's hand (Figure 1);
a battery pack (10, Figure 1) attached to the housing and configured to supply electric power to the electric motor via the control unit (Para. 51 “the battery pack 10 is connected to the drive electronics of the electric drive motor 5 and to an actuating element, in the form of a throttle lever 62, for controlling the electric drive motor 5”); and
a trigger lever (62, Figure 1) disposed on the grip and configured to operate the electric motor by being pulled toward the grip by a finger of the user,
wherein the working unit comprises a guide bar (19) extending in the front-back direction and a saw chain (20) disposed on a periphery of the guide bar and configured to move along the periphery of the guide bar as the electric motor operates, the working machine works as a chain saw (Figure 4), a direction along a width direction of the guide bar and perpendicular to the front-back direction is defined as an up-down direction, the trigger lever (162) is configured to be pulled upward, and the trigger lever is disposed below a lower end of the guide bar (Figure 1).
However, Mang fails to discuss that a front end of the control unit is disposed rearward of a rear end of the trigger lever or if one argue that Mang does not show or have a control unit (circuit board). A control unit in a chainsaw is well-known in the arts, for an example, Markus, who shows a similar device (Figure 2 below) having a control unit (314) positioned at an end of a motor (304) and a trigger (316, Figure 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a circuit board or a control unit of Markus to the chainsaw of Mang, in order to allow to properly provide power to and control the electric motor (Para. 19 of Markus). Doing so, a front end of the control unit is disposed rearward of a rear end of the trigger lever as seen in Figure 2 of Markus below.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified machine of Mang shows all of the limitations as stated above including a center of gravity of the electric motor (inherently) is disposed rearward of the rear end of the trigger lever (it depends a viewing position of the chainsaw. Moreover, see MPEP 2112.01, under the heading "Product and Apparatus Claims - When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions are Presumed to be Inherent").
Regarding claim 3, the modified machine of Mang shows that a front end of the electric motor (a motor end towards the rotation axis 16, Figure 1 of Mang) is disposed rearward of a front end of the trigger lever (it depends a viewing position of the chainsaw. See Figure 5 of Mang, the motor end prior an output shaft is about the rear end trigger where it pivotal connects to the housing).
Regarding claim 4 , the modified machine of Mang shows that a front end of the battery pack (10, Mang’s Figure 6) is disposed rearward of the rear end of the trigger lever (Mang’s Figures 1-2. See the discussion in claim 3 for the front end of the trigger).
Regarding claim 5, the modified machine of Mang shows that a transmission mechanism (16-18, Mang’s Figure 2) housed in the housing body and configured to transmit power from the electric motor to the working unit, wherein a rear end of the transmission mechanism is disposed rearward of a front end of the trigger lever (see Mang’s Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified machine of Mang shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the control unit comprises a switching element (as it is written, it is unclear what it is for. Therefore, there are many switches at the board 317, the control electronics 314 for receiving signal, activating, controlling the motor as discussed in Para. 13 of Markus) configured to control current supplied to the electric motor. However, Mang’s motor is unclear whether it is a brushless motor or not.
Markus shows a brushless motor uses in a chainsaw (Para. 35 “brushless direct current motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have replaced the motor of Mang for a brushless DC motor, as taught by Markus This gives the manufacture to use a brushless motor in a chainsaw that is more efficient, durable, and quieter, leading to a longer lifespan and better performance (as discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushless_DC_electric_motor).
Regarding claim 9, the modified machine of Mang shows all of the limitations as stated above except an oil tank attached to the housing body and configured to store lubricating oil for lubricating the saw chain, wherein the oil tank is arranged at or in proximity to a front end of the housing body.
Markus also shows an oil tank (504, Figure 5 and Para. 13), wherein the oil tank is arranged at or in proximity to a front end of an housing body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a lubrication system, as taught by Markus to the chainsaw of Mang, in order to provide lubrication (e.g., bar and chain oil) to the drive mechanism, the saw chain, and/or the guide bar (Para. 13 of Markus).
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified machine of Mang shows that the electric motor comprises a stator and a rotor (this is a brushless DC motor which includes a stator and a rotor connecting to output shaft; see the modification of claim 7 above and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushless_DC_electric_motor),
the working machine further comprises a motor shaft fixed to the rotor, and the control unit is disposed on an extension line of an axis line of the motor shaft (see Markus’s Figure 2) and
a distance from an extension line of an axis line of the motor shaft to the front end of the control unit is smaller than a distance from the extension line to a rear end of the control unit (as this is written, it is not clear what a specific of the front and rear ends of the control unit and the location or a portion of the extension line of an axis line are for measuring a distance, therefore, see Figure 2 above, Markus shows the front and rear ends of the control unit 317 such that a distance from an extension line of an axis line A1 of the motor shaft to the front end of the control unit is smaller than a distance from the extension line A1 to a rear end of the control unit).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified machine of Mang shows that the electric motor comprises a stator and a rotor (see the discussion in claims 11-12 above), the working machine further comprises:
a motor shaft fixed to the rotor (Figure 2 of Markus and see the discussion in claims 11-12 above); and an oil tank attached to the housing body and configured to store lubricating oil for lubricating the saw chain (see the discussion of claim 9 above), and
when inside of the housing body is seen from front along a direction perpendicular to an axis line of the motor shaft, the control unit, the electric motor, and the oil tank are aligned “substantially” in a line (Figure 5 of Markus).
Regarding claim 14, the modified machine of Mang shows that
the electric motor comprises a stator and a rotor (see the discussion in claims 11-12 above), the working machine further comprises a motor shaft fixed to the rotor (Figure 2 of Markus), and
an axis line of the motor shaft is inclined relative to a left-right direction that is perpendicular to the front-back direction and the up-down direction (Figure 5 of Mang, the motor shaft is perpendicular a front-back direction of the housing and inclined from left to right direction as seen in Figure 1 rotated in 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, the modified machine of Mang shows that the electric motor is disposed above the trigger level (Figures 1-4 of Mang).
Claims 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view Markus and Shingo (JP2021187061 and Translation).
Regarding claim 6, the modified machine of Mang shows all of the limitations as stated above except a controller case that houses the control board, and the controller case is constituted of a metal.
Shingo shows a chainsaw (Figures 1 and 7) that has a controller case (a heatsink 19, Figure 7) that houses a control board (17), and the controller case is constituted of a metal (a heatsink is a metal of some sort for distributing heat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control unit of Mang to have a controller case that houses a control board, and the controller case is constituted of a metal (a heatsink is a metal of some sorts for distributing heat), as taught by Shingo, in order to allow to cool switching elements of the control unit (6th paragraph of the description of embodiments of Translation of Shingo).
Regarding claim 10, Shibata shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-5, 7, 9 above including a center of gravity of the electric motor is disposed rearward of the rear end of the trigger lever and a controller case that houses the control board, the controller case is constituted of a metal.
See the modification for a center of gravity of the electric motor is disposed rearward of the rear end of the trigger lever in claim 2 above.
See the modification for a controller case that houses the control board, the controller case is constituted of a metal in claim 6 above.
Based on these modifications, the modified machine of Mang read on the claimed invention of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See the new art above, Mang in view of Markus and Shingo.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 11/20/2025