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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 12-24-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-24-2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “shaft sleeve,” of Claim 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The shaft sleeve is not labeled with a reference number in the figures or in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “two step structures” of Claim 4, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Two step structures are not labeled with a reference number in the figures or in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “two cutters having inner holes with different diameters” of Claim 4, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, a gasket, in Claim 5, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 working assembly in Claim 1; a transmission mechanism in Claim 1; and a guard adjustment mechanism in Claim 3;
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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A.
In re Claim 1, Tokunaga teaches a power tool (see Figs. 2 and 4-5), comprising:
a housing (see Figs. 4-5, #31/40);
a motor mounted in the housing (see Figs. 4-5, #34), the motor having a motor shaft (see Fig. 5, #34a);
a power supply (see Fig. 4, #38), configured to provide energy for the motor (see para. 0081, teaching the motor is started with the battery);
a working assembly (see Figs. 4-5, #37), rotating along a rotating axis thereof (see Fig. 5, axis, J2); and
a transmission mechanism (see Fig. 5, #35a), having a transmission shaft (see Fig. 5, output shaft #8), the transmission shaft being connected with the motor shaft (see Fig. 5, #8 is connected to #34a), so as to transmit power from the motor to the working assembly (see Par. 0082);
and an axis of the rotating axis of the working assembly intersects an axis of the transmission shaft (the axis of J2 and the axis of the transmission shaft #8 intersect – see Fig. 5).
Tokunaga does not teach wherein the motor is an outer rotor motor.
However, CN 103402682 A teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to use an outer rotor motor (see CN 103402682 A, Para. 0003-0005 and 0009-00012). In the same field of invention, electrical power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the inner rotator motor of Tokunaga with an outer rotator motor, as taught by CN 103402682 A. Doing so provides a motor that provides a higher torque and lower vibration (see CN 103402682 A, Para. 0009-0012).
In re Claim 2, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, teaches the power tool according to claim 1, wherein the transmission shaft and the motor shaft are on a same axis and are connected by a coupling (see Fig. 5, #8 and #34A are aligned in the same axis and are coupled together, this connection, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a coupling);
a bevel gear assembly (see Fig. 5, #35a/35b) is arranged between the transmission shaft and the rotating axis (see Fig. 5, showing #35a/35b between #8 and #36/J2), the bevel gear assembly comprises a driving bevel gear (#35a) and a driven bevel gear (#34b), the driving bevel gear is arranged on the transmission shaft (#35 is on #8), and the driven bevel gear is arranged on the rotating axis (#34a is on #J2/36).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A, and further in view of US 2008/0153404 to Schmidberger-Brinek.
In re Claim 3, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a cover, wherein the cover is provided on an outer side of the transmission shaft, the working assembly is a cutter, and a blade guard is mounted on an outer side of the cutter, and the blade guard is fixedly connected to the cover through a mounting base;
Modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, does not teach the power tool further comprises a guard adjustment mechanism, and the guard adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust an angle of the blade guard.
However, Schmidberger-Brinek teaches that it is known in the art to provide a guard adjustment mechanism, and the guard adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust an angle of the blade guard (see Figs. 1-4, teaching structure for rotationally locking the guard; see also Para. 0008; 0010; 0029; and 0039).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the rotation structure of Schmidberger-Brinek to the device of modified Tokunaga. Doing so allows the user to rotate the guard depending on the type of cut thereby protecting the operator of the tool (see Schmidberger-Brinek, Para. 0037).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A, and further in view of US 2008/0153404 to Schmidberger-Brinek.
In re Claim 4, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 3, teaches wherein a bearing is mounted in the mounting base (see Fig. 5, #36b), the bearing is sleeved on the rotating axis and arranged between the mounting base and the rotating axis (see Fig. 5, the bearing #36 is between the mounting base and the axis), a shaft sleeve is provided between the rotating axis and the cutter, and the shaft sleeve is coupled with the rotating axis (see Fig. 5, #37a).
Modified Tokunaga does not teach two step structures with different diameters are arranged on an outer side of the shaft sleeve, so as to adapt to two cutters having inner holes with different diameters.
However, Hall teaches that it is known to provide step structures with two different diameters arranged on the outer side of the shaft sleeve, so as to adapt to two cutters having inner holds with different diameters (see Hall, Fig. 1, #16, Fig. 3, #18, Fig. 4, #15; see also Figs. 6-7).
In the same field of invention, spindles for circular saw blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to change the output spindle of Hall to provide two different diameters arranged on the outer side of the shaft sleeve, so as to adapt to two cutter having inner holds with different diameters. Doing so allows the user to use the tool with differs sized blades thereby making the tool more versatile.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A, and US 2008/0153404 to Schmidberger-Brinek, and further in view of US 6,277,013 to Sasaki and CN 102029562 A.
In re Claim 5, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 3, does not teach further comprising a cutter limiting device, wherein the cutter limiting device comprises a limiting button, a limiting column and a spring, the limiting button is mounted on the housing, one end of the limiting column is connected with the limiting button, and the other end of the limiting column is provided with a gasket, and the spring sleeves the limiting column and is arranged between the gasket and the limiting button; a plurality of limiting holes matched with the limiting column are arranged on the driven bevel gear, and when the limiting column extend into one of plurality of the limiting holes, the driven bevel gears are locked, so that the cutters are locked.
However, Sasaki teaches a cutter limiting device (see Sasaki, Fig. 3, #125, 126, 127, 128), wherein the cutter limiting device comprises a limiting button (top of #126), a limiting column (shaft of #127 below #126 in Fig. 3) and a spring (see Fig. 3, #127), the limiting button is mounted on the housing (see Fig. 3, #127 is located in the housing), one end of the limiting column is connected with the limiting button (end of #125 is a button for the user to depress), and the spring sleeves the limiting column (see Fig. 3, #127 surrounding #125); a plurality of limiting holes (see Fig. 3, #128) matched with the limiting column are arranged on the driven bevel gear (see Fig. 3, #128 in gear #119), and when the limiting column extend into one of plurality of the limiting holes (see Fig. 3, the end of #125 enters into #128), the driven bevel gears are locked, so that the cutters are locked (see Sasaki, Col. 5, ll. 60 - Col. 6, ll. 5).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the locking assembly of Sasaki. Doing so allows the user to replace the blade by securing the spindle and unscrewing the nut (see Sasaki, Col. 5, ll. 60 – Col. 6, ll. 5)
Additionally, CN 102029562 A teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to provide at the other end of the limiting column is provided with a gasket (see Fig. 1, o-ring, #10). In the same field of invention, power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add an o-ring to the locking mechanism of modified Tokunaga. Doing so avoids external impurities entering, the lubricate leaking, there by service life and durability of the gear are improvise (see CN 102029562 A, 1abstract)
Such a combination would provide for the spring and is arranged between the gasket and the limiting button.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724