DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment 4/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
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 1-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US 5212886) in view of Wolf (US 20190255727 A1) and Kachi (US 20170259359 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tasaki teaches a handheld power tool (see Figure 1) comprising a tool (6 and 5) and an engine (7) configured to power the tool, wherein the power tool comprises a handle portion (the assembly 1 and 15 in Figure 2) comprising a handle (16 and 15) and an engine portion (1) comprising the engine,
wherein the engine portion is resiliently suspended to the handle portion via a number of resilient members (20),
wherein the power tool has a horizontal centre plane being parallel to a flat horizontal support surface when the power tool is positioned in a usual upright parking position thereon (see annotated Figure 1),
the power tool further having a vertical centre plane being perpendicular to the horizontal centre plane (see annotated Figure 1), and
a void space (at least when 14 is removed) between the handle portion and the engine portion extending along a separation plane (see annotated Figure 1), wherein the separation plane is transversal to the horizontal centre plane and to the vertical centre plane (see annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tasaki fails to teach wherein the power tool comprises a control device accommodating an electronic control unit configured to control operation of at least one electronic component of the power tool, the control device comprising two larger sides having larger dimensions than other sides of the control device, and wherein the control device is mounted to the handheld power tool such that an angle between the separation plane and one of the two larger sides is less than 35 degrees.
Wolf teaches a chain saw (see Figure 1) comprises a control device (29) accommodating an electronic control unit configured to control operation of at least one electronic component of the power tool (see Figure 12), the control device comprising two larger sides having larger dimensions than other sides of the control device (width and height in Figure 12), and wherein the control device is mounted to the handheld power tool (see Figure 2 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tasaki to add the control system, as taught by Wolf, in order to better control the power tool (abstract of Wolf).
Kachi teaches a chain saw with a control device (27), the control device comprising two larger sides having larger dimensions than other sides of the control device (width and depth in Figure 3).
Both Wolf and Kachi teaches a control unit with different mounting positions in the engine portion of the chain saw (see Figure 3 of Kachi and Figure 2 of Wolf), Examiner notes that both Wolf and Kachi have the larger side oriented differently with each other, as one of ordinary skill in the art understand the control unit can be mount any orientation and location depended on the space with in the power tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to mount the control unit any where in the device including “the control device is mounted to the handheld power tool such that an angle between the separation plane and one of the two larger sides is less than 35 degrees”. Since the court have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MEPE 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tasaki further teaches the control device is mounted adjacent to the void space (as modified by claim 1, obvious to mounted the control at any desired location).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tasaki further teaches the control device is mounted in the engine portion (as modified by claim 1, obvious to mounted the control at any desired location, Wolf and Kachi both should example of control mounted to the engine portion).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tasaki further teaches the control device is mounted in the handle portion (as modified by claim 1, obvious to mounted the control at any desired location, Wolf and Kachi both should example of control mounted to the engine portion of the handle portion).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tasaki further teaches the power tool comprises a fuel tank arranged in the handle portion (17 of Tasaki, see Figure 1 of Tasaki)
Regarding claim 6, modified Tasaki further teaches an outer surface of the fuel tank faces the void space (see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tasaki further teaches an angle between the separation plane and the horizontal centre plane of the power tool is within the range of unknow angle (see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki).
Modified Tasaki fails to teach 10 — 70 degrees.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle of 10-70 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the housing size of modified Tasaki to have the specific angle required base on the desires shape and size for the housing wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 14, modified Tasaki further teaches the power tool is a chainsaw (See Figure 1 of Tasaki).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US 5212886) in view of Wolf (US 20190255727 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tasaki teaches a handheld power tool (see Figure 1) comprising a tool (6 and 5) and an engine (7) configured to power the tool, wherein the power tool comprises a handle portion (the assembly 1 and 15 in Figure 2) comprising a handle (16 and 15) and an engine portion (1) comprising the engine,
wherein the engine portion is resiliently suspended to the handle portion via a number of resilient members (20),
wherein the power tool has a horizontal centre plane being parallel to a flat horizontal support surface when the power tool is positioned in a usual upright parking position thereon (see annotated Figure 1),
the power tool further having a vertical centre plane being perpendicular to the horizontal centre plane (see annotated Figure 1), and
a void space (at least when 14 is removed) between the handle portion and the engine portion extending along a separation plane (see annotated Figure 1), wherein the separation plane is transversal to the horizontal centre plane and to the vertical centre plane (see annotated Figure 1),
the engine is a two stroke engine comprising: - a cylinder (7), - a piston arranged to reciprocate in the cylinder between a bottom dead centre and a top dead centre (with in 7, see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki), - a crankcase (14, see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki), - an air inlet connected to the crankcase (9, see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki), and configured to conduct air along a first direction to the cylinder (see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki), and wherein an angle between the separation plane and the first direction at an unknown degrees (see annotated Figure 1 of Tasaki).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tasaki fails to teach wherein the power tool comprises a control device accommodating an electronic control unit configured to control operation of at least one electronic component of the power tool, the control device comprising two larger sides having larger dimensions than other sides of the control device, - a stratified scavenging intake channel configured to conduct air along a first direction to the cylinder, wherein an angle between the separation plane and the first direction at the angle is less than 35 degrees.
Wolf teaches a chain saw (see Figure 1) comprises a control device (29) accommodating an electronic control unit configured to control operation of at least one electronic component of the power tool (see Figure 12), the control device comprising two larger sides having larger dimensions than other sides of the control device (width and height in Figure 12), and wherein the control device is mounted to the handheld power tool (see Figure 2 and 12), a engine with a stratified scavenging intake channel next a intake (paragraph 0045 of Wolf and Figure 3) and a fuel injector (44, paragraph 0046-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tasaki to add the control system, as taught by Wolf, in order to better control the power tool (abstract of Wolf).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tasaki to add change the engine into scavenging action engine with fuel injector and the scavenging intake next to the intake, as taught by Wolf, in order to better operate the engine (paragraph 0045 of Wolf).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle is less than 35 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the mounting orientation of the engine of modified Tasaki to have the specific angle required base on the desires layout for the inter spacing of the power tool wanted by the user.
Regarding claim 9, modified Tasaki further teaches the control device is mounted to the handheld power tool such that the angle between the first direction and one of the two larger sides is less than unknown degrees (as modified in claim 1, see annotated Figure 1 Tasaki).
Modified Tasaki fails to teach the angle is less than 25 degrees.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle is less than 25 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the mounting orientation engine and the control unit of modified Tasaki to have the specific angle required base on the desires layout for the inter spacing of the power tool wanted by the user.
Regarding claim 10, modified Tasaki further teaches the control device is arranged adjacent to the stratified scavenging intake channel (as modified by claim 1, wherever is required/wanted by the end user including adjacent to stratified scavenging intake channel and the modification in claim 8, see paragraph 0045 of Wolf).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tasaki further teaches the engine comprises a scavenging channel configured to conduct an air fuel mixture from the crankcase to the cylinder when the piston is in a region of the bottom dead centre, and wherein the piston comprises a mantle surface provided with an aperture arranged to superimpose the stratified scavenging intake channel and the scavenging channel when the piston is in a region of the top dead centre (as modified by claim 8, see paragraph 0045 of Wolf).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tasaki further teaches the power tool comprises a fuel injector configured to inject fuel into the crankcase or into the air inlet (as modified by claim 8, 44 of Wolf, paragraph 0046 of Wolf and Figure 3 of Wolf).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tasaki further teaches the electronic control unit of the control device is configured to control operation of the fuel injector (as modified by claim 8, 44 of Wolf, paragraph 0046-0048 of Wolf and Figure 3 of Wolf).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the arrangement of the parts to create less that 35 degree of the separation plane with the one of the two larger sides for claim 1 or the first direction for claim 8. Examiner notes that as the applicant did not demonstrated the “criticality” of a specific orientation for the parts, the current limitation’s location is considered as design choice of placement of parts, therefore the modification is obvious under rearrangement of part (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case one of ordinary skill in the art can arrange the control device/intake channel any orientation base on the design chose of the end user, therefore the modification is obvious under rearrangement of part (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C).
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights