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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao et al. (2023/0051358), hereinafter Tao.
Regarding claim 1, Tao teaches a power tool, comprising:
a housing comprising 11 a support portion;
a cutting unit 20 for cutting a target object; and
a driving device 40 configured to drive the cutting unit, wherein the cutting unit moves between a first position and a second position relative to the support portion under the action of the driving device; and
the cutting unit implements a blade lifting motion under the action of the driving device when the cutting unit moves from the first position to the second position;
wherein the blade lifting motion comprises a first mode and a second mode; in the first mode, a time for the cutting unit to implement the blade lifting motion is a first blade lifting time; in the second mode, a time for the cutting unit to implement the blade lifting motion is a second blade lifting time; and the first blade lifting time is less than the second blade lifting time.
See Figs. 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 3, a blade lifting switch 50 is best seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claims 4-5, the blade lifting switch on provided on the handle is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Tao teaches the blade lifting switch 50 having two operating modes.
Regarding claims 7-9, Tao teaches the blade lifting switch 50 having three positions.
Regarding claim 10, a transmission unit is best seen in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 11, Tao teaches an electric motor having seven output speeds in para. [0078] which covers the two claimed power modes of the motor.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Tao teaches the same gear arrangement as the claimed gear arrangement of the invention. Therefore, the gear arrangement in Tao are capable of setting the claimed lifting time and the lifting ratio of claims 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 14, Tao teaches a controller in Figs. 13-15.
Regarding claim 15, Tao teaches a battery pack 14 in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 16, Tao teaches a power tool, comprising:
a cutting unit 20 for cutting a target object; and
a housing comprising a support portion 121 for supporting the target object;
wherein the cutting unit is configured to be movable relative to the support portion to a first position and a second position, the cutting unit implements a blade lifting motion when moving from the first position to the second position, the blade lifting motion comprises a first mode and a second mode, in the first mode, a time for the cutting unit to implement the blade lifting motion is a first blade lifting time, in the second mode, a time for the cutting unit to implement the blade lifting motion is a second blade lifting time, and the first blade lifting time is less than the second blade lifting time.
See Figs. 1 and 9.
Regarding claims 17-19, Tao teaches the same gear arrangement as the claimed gear arrangement of the invention. Therefore, the gear arrangement in Tao are capable of setting the claimed lifting time and the lifting ratio of claims 17-18.
Regarding claim 20, Tao teaches a power tool, comprising:
a cutting unit 20 for cutting a target object; and
a housing comprising a support portion 121 for supporting the target object;
wherein the cutting unit is configured to be movable relative to the support portion to a first position and a second position, the cutting unit implements a blade lifting motion when moving from the first position to the second position, the blade lifting motion comprises a first mode and a second mode, in the first mode, the cutting unit implements the blade lifting motion at a first blade lifting speed, in the second mode, the cutting unit implements the blade lifting motion at a second blade lifting speed, and the first blade lifting speed is greater than the second blade lifting speed.
See Figs. 1 and 9.
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 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (2023/0051358), hereinafter Tao.
Tao discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of the lifting times and the lifting time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the power tool in Tao having the claimed lifting time ration and the claimed lifting time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
The Drawing Objection inadvertently left in the Final Office Action has been removed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Common Ownership Statement Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C), the effective filling date of this application is the foreign priority date 09/01/2022. The effective filling date of Tao is the foreign priority date 08/10/ 2021 which is more than a year compare to 09/01/2022. Therefore, Tao has a proper 102(a)(1) date.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Tao teaches a lifting motion of the blade 20 when the blade 20 moves away from the support 121. Depending on the position of the brake assembly 32, the movement of the cutting blade 20 toward and away from the support 121 can be fast or slow. See para. [0048-0049], [0058-0060] and [0064]. Furthermore, the gear system in the invention and Tao are identical as shown below. Therefore, the tool of Tao can perform the same claimed function. Therefore, Tao reads on the claim language.
PNG
media_image1.png
1282
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights