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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 25 November 2025 has been considered. New rejections based on applicant’s amendments are recited below. Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are currently pending.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,134,178 to Tong et al (Tong).
Concerning claim 1, Tong discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (12) including
a housing (12) including a lower housing portion (122, 123) coupled to an upper housing portion (121),
the lower housing portion (122, 123) including an open end (E1 in the figure reproduced below) having a rim (E3 in the figure reproduced below) that defines an opening, a partially closed end (E2 in the figure reproduced below) opposite the open end (E1), and a cylindrical wall (122, 123) extending between the open end and the partially closed end;
an electric motor (11) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate a tool holder (13) about an output axis;
and a circuit board (181) coupled to the electric motor and including a controller (18) configured to control operation of the electric motor (11);
wherein the rim (E3) defines a straight reference plane, and wherein the electric motor (11) and the circuit board (18, 181) are positioned within the lower housing portion (122, 123) entirely on one side of the straight reference plane.
Concerning claim 2, Tong discloses the electric motor (11) includes a stator (116) affixed to the housing and a rotor (117) configured to rotate relative to the stator (116).
Concerning claim 3, Tong discloses the motor unit further includes an output shaft (111) configured to rotate about an axis, and the rotor (117) is affixed to the output shaft (111) and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate a tool holder (13) about an axis of the output shaft (111).
Concerning claim 4, Tong discloses the tool holder (13) is directly coupled to the output shaft (111).
Concerning claim 5, Tong discloses a base (14) configured to removably receive the motor unit (12) and support the motor unit (12) above a workpiece.
Concerning claim 6, Tong discloses in figure 7 the upper housing portion (121) includes two clamshell housing halves (1212).
Concerning claim 7, Tong discloses the upper housing portion (121) includes a battery receiving portion (1211) configured to selectively and removably couple to a battery pack.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,900661 to Thorson et al (Thorson).
Concerning claim 8, Tong does not disclose the motor unit further includes a depth adjustment shaft rotatably supported by each of the upper housing portion and the lower housing portion.
Thorson discloses a router comprising: a motor unit (28) including a housing (48), and
a motor (36) situated within the housing (48) and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (40) of the motor unit about an output axis;
wherein the motor unit (28) further includes a depth adjustment shaft (52) rotatably supported by each of the upper housing portion (E11 in the figure reproduced below) and the lower housing portion (E12 in the figure reproduced below.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. a router, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the depth adjustment device of Tong with that of Thorson. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the depth adjustment device of Tong with that of Thorson will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being that the router can be used with different bases as seen in figure 2 of Thorson.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Thorson and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,302,406 to Kato et al (Kato).
Concerning claim 9, Tong discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (12) including a housing (12) including a battery receiving portion (1211) configured to selectively and removably couple to a battery pack, and
a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (11) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (13) of the motor unit about an output axis;
a first base (14) configured to removably receive the motor unit and support the motor unit above a workpiece, the first base including a first lower base portion (142) and an annular sleeve (1411); and
wherein the housing (12) includes a lower housing portion (122, 123) coupled to an upper housing portion (121), the lower housing portion including an open end (E1 in the figure reproduced below), a partially closed end (E2 in the figure reproduced below) opposite the open end (E1).
However, Tong does not disclose a second base nor the cylindrical wall and screw boss.
Thorson discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (28) including a housing (48), and
a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (36) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (40) of the motor unit about an output axis;
a first base (32) configured to removably receive the motor unit (28) and support the motor unit above a workpiece, the first base (32) including a first lower base portion (E14 in the figure reproduced below) and an annular sleeve (E15 in the figure reproduced below); and
a second base (24) configured to removably receive the motor unit (28) and support the motor unit above a workpiece, the second base including a second lower base portion (80), a base support component (84), and a guide post (88) coupling the second lower base portion (80) to the base support component (84).
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. a router, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the second base of Thorson to the router of Tong. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple addition of the second base of Thorson to the router of Tong will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being that the router can be used with different bases as seen in figure 2 of Thorson.
Kato discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (15) including a housing, and
a motor (40) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (58) of the motor unit about an output axis;
a first base (60) configured to removably receive the motor unit (15) and support the motor unit (15) above a workpiece (W), the first base (60) including a first lower base portion (61) and an annular sleeve (72); and
wherein the housing includes a lower housing portion (21) coupled to an upper housing portion (36), the lower housing portion (21) including an open end (E21 in the figure reproduced below), a partially closed end (E22 in the figure reproduced below) opposite the open end (top of 20), and a cylindrical wall (25) extending between the open end (E21) and the partially closed end (E22) and
wherein the lower housing portion further includes a screw boss (54) that protrudes inwardly from the cylindrical wall (25), and wherein the motor (40) includes a stator (43) that abuts the screw boss (54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the cylindrical wall and screw boss of Kato to the router of Tong, in view of Thorson, because as disclosed by Kato the wall allows for having insulation (both electrical and thermal) while also having an external housing that has a higher mechanical strength (column 6, lines 38-60) and the screw boss allows for fixedly attaching the stator to the internal housing i.e. the cylindrical wall (column 5, lines 50-53).
Concerning claim 10, Kato, as applied to Tong in view of Thorson, does not disclose the cylindrical wall defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 82 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Kato, as applied to Tong in view of Thorson, such that the cylindrical wall defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 82 millimeters as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation.
Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the exact sizing.
Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 11, Kato, as applied to Tong in view of Thorson, discloses the lower housing portion defines an internal cavity, and wherein the motor (of Tong) is positioned within the internal cavity and surrounded by the cylindrical wall (25).
Concerning claim 13, Tong in view of Thorson and further in view of Kato does not disclose wherein the stator defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 60 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Tong in view of Thorson and further in view of Kato such the stator defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 60 millimeters as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation.
Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the exact sizing. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 14, Kato, as applied to Tong in view of Thorson, discloses an output shaft (43) rotatably supported by the housing and configured to support the output device (58); and a fan (53) fixedly coupled to the output shaft (43); wherein the motor (40) is positioned between the fan (53) and the battery receiving portion (as when combined with Tong the top of the device is the battery receiving portion and thus would be above the motor which would then be above the fan) along a direction of the output axis.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the fan of Thorson to the output shaft of Tong because, as disclosed by Thorson the fan blows air from the lower end to the upper end of the housing (column 6, lines 5-10) which is well known in the art to provide cooling to the motor.
Concerning claim 15, Tong, in view of Thorson and further in view of Kato, does not explicitly disclose the battery pack has a nominal voltage of less than 21 volts, and wherein the BLDC motor is configured to output at least 1800 W in response to receiving power from the battery pack. However, the router of the combination is capable of being used with the battery pack has a nominal voltage of less than 21 volts and the BLDC motor is capable to output at least 1800 W in response to receiving power from the battery pack.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Kato.
Concerning claim 16, Tong discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (12) including a housing (12) including a battery receiving portion (1211) configured to selectively and removably couple to a battery pack, and
a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (11) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (13) of the motor unit about an output axis;
a base (14) configured to removably receive the motor unit and support the motor unit above a workpiece, the first base including a first lower base portion (142) and an annular sleeve (1411); and
wherein the housing (12) includes a lower housing portion (122, 123) coupled to an upper housing portion (121), the lower housing portion including an open end (E1 in the figure reproduced below), a partially closed end (E2 in the figure reproduced below) opposite the open end (E1).
However, Tong does not disclose the cylindrical wall and screw boss.
Kato discloses a router comprising:
a motor unit (15) including a housing, and
a motor (40) situated within the housing and configured to provide rotational energy to rotate an output device (58) of the motor unit about an output axis;
a first base (60) configured to removably receive the motor unit (15) and support the motor unit (15) above a workpiece (W), the first base (60) including a first lower base portion (61) and an annular sleeve (72); and
wherein the housing includes a lower housing portion (21) coupled to an upper housing portion (36), the lower housing portion (21) including an open end (E21 in the figure reproduced below), a partially closed end (E22 in the figure reproduced below) opposite the open end (top of 20), and a cylindrical wall (25) extending between the open end (E21) and the partially closed end (E22) and
wherein the lower housing portion further includes a screw boss (54) that protrudes inwardly from the cylindrical wall (25), and wherein the motor (40) includes a stator (43) that abuts the screw boss (54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the cylindrical wall and screw boss of Kato to the router of Tong, in view of Thorson, because as disclosed by Kato the wall allows for having insulation (both electrical and thermal) while also having an external housing that has a higher mechanical strength (column 6, lines 38-60) and the screw boss allows for fixedly attaching the stator to the internal housing i.e. the cylindrical wall (column 5, lines 50-53).
Tong, in view of Kato, does not explicitly disclose the battery pack has a nominal voltage of less than 21 volts, and wherein the BLDC motor is configured to output at least 1800 W in response to receiving power from the battery pack. However, the router of the combination is capable of being used with the battery pack has a nominal voltage of less than 21 volts and the BLDC motor is capable to output at least 1800 W in response to receiving power from the battery pack.
Concerning claim 17, Tong in view of Kato does not disclose wherein the stator defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 60 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Tong in view of Kato such the stator defines an outer diameter that is less than or equal to 60 millimeters as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation.
Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the exact sizing. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 14, Kato, as applied to Tong, discloses an output shaft (43) rotatably supported by the housing and configured to support the output device (58); and a fan (53) fixedly coupled to the output shaft (43); wherein the motor (40) is positioned between the fan (53) and the battery receiving portion (as when combined with Tong the top of the device is the battery receiving portion and thus would be above the motor which would then be above the fan) along a direction of the output axis.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the fan of Thorson to the output shaft of Tong because, as disclosed by Thorson the fan blows air from the lower end to the upper end of the housing (column 6, lines 5-10) which is well known in the art to provide cooling to the motor.
Concerning claim 19, Kato, as applied to Tong in view of Thorson, discloses the lower housing portion defines an internal cavity, and wherein the motor (of Tong) is positioned within the internal cavity and surrounded by the cylindrical wall (25).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
800
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
606
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-19 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
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 Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
03/10/2026