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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjo et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0000785 A1) (hereinafter Banjo) and further in view of Neuer (US Pub. No.: 2019/0344468 A1) (hereinafter Neuer).
Regarding claim 1, Banjo disclose a lot splitter, comprising: a housing (105); a support arm extending between a first end and a second end (Notice the depiction below); a rack coupled to at least a portion of the support arm, the rack configured to move along the support arm in a forward direction to an extended position adjacent the first end of the support arm and a reverse direction to a starting position adjacent the second end of the support arm (Notice the depiction below).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Banjo discloses the use of actuation assembly to move the anvil (102) toward the wedge (104) (¶0023). Banjo discloses the power is supplied by combustion engine. Banjo is silent about the use of battery as the power source and motor driven by battery.
Neuer also discloses a log splitter. Neuer discloses the drive assembly a drive assembly 18 is configured to supply a rotational force to rotate the gear shaft 16. The drive assembly 18 includes a motor 60 having an output shaft 62, a first flywheel 64, a second flywheel 66, and a drive belt 68. The motor 60, such as an internal combustion engine or an electric motor, outputs a rotational force to the output shaft 62 (¶0022). Thus, Neuer discloses the combustion engine and electric motor are interchangeable. The benefit of using electric motor would be to reduce carbon footprint.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize electric motor instead of combustion engine as taught by Neuer within the log splitter as taught by Banjo. The benefit of doing so would have been to reduce carbon footprint.
Regarding claim 2, Banjo discloses the actuation assembly comprises: a safety lever actuatable between a locked state and an unlocked state; and a trigger lever actuatable from a normal position to a forward position when the safety lever is in the unlocked state, wherein the trigger lever engages the rack with a pinion for movement of the rack in the forward direction in the unlocked state (¶0019-¶0028).
Regarding claim 3, Banjo discloses wherein rotation of the pinion is driven by the motor to move the rack in the forward direction (¶0032).
Regarding claim 4, Banjo discloses a biasing member (558) coupled to the rack, wherein the biasing member moves the rack in the reverse direction from the extended position to the starting position (Fig. 5A; ¶0043).
Regarding claim 7, Banjo discloses a wedge (104) adjacent the first end of the support arm, the wedge extending perpendicular to a length of the support arm; wherein the wedge includes a tip extending toward the rack, the tip including an angled edge for splitting a log into two or more pieces (Fig. 4A -notice the depicted figure in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Banjo discloses an end of the rack adjacent the first end of the support arm comprises a back plate (102), the back plate configured to drive a log positioned on the support arm into the wedge; and the tip of the wedge is configured to split the log into two or more pieces (Fig. 4A).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjo and Neuer as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Coolbaugh. (US Pub. No.: 2022/0234242 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Banjo and Neuer. They are both silent about limitations of claims 5 and 6.
Coolbaugh disclose a battery powered portable log splitter. The log splitter is operated via battery (114). The battery is disposed within housing (1140). The battery would naturally be removable so it can be replaced with new battery after current battery’s end of life cycle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the battery removable as taught by Coolbaugh within the log splitter as taught by the combined teaching of Banjo and Neuer. The benefit of doing so would have been allow the battery to be replaced with a new battery when the current battery approaches it’s end of life cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746