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 § 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, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masek (1,832,993) in view of WO 2019/047586.
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 6, Masek discloses the invention including a handheld electric working machine for cutting an object (title, page 1 line 96), the machine being elongated along a first direction in a plan view after the machine is placed on a plane (Fig. 1), the machine having a working portion configured to cut the object (10), a housing (1) elongated along the first direction in the plan view on the plane (Fig. 1), the housing having first and second ends opposite to each other along the first direction (Fig. 1), the first end being positioned directly adjacent to the working portion (Fig. 1), the housing having a centerline extending along the first direction in the plan view (Fig. 1), an electric powered motor (21) housed in the housing (Fig. 1), the motor being configured to generate rotary power to drive the working portion (21) provided adjacent to the second end of the housing (Fig. 1), an output axis (22) of the motor is displaced in a second direction from the centerline of the housing in the plan view (Fig. 1), the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1), the motor is positioned within an outer periphery of the housing (Fig. 1), and the machine is an outdoor electric power cutting tool (title, Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claims 1, 2, and 4, Masek fails to disclose a control unit housed in the housing, the control unit being configured to control rotation of the motor, a heat sink provided in contact with the control unit to define a boundary between the control unit and the heat sink, the control unit is positioned within the outer periphery of the housing in the plan view, the control unit is an elongated structure elongated along a third direction in the plan view, the control unit is provided such that a second angle, and the second angle is formed by the centerline and a line parallel to the third direction of the control unit in the plan view.
WO 2019/047586 teaches it is known in the art of the hedge trimmers to incorporate a control unit (57) housed in the housing (Fig. 10), the control unit being configured to control rotation of the motor (57), a heat sink provided in contact with the control unit to define a boundary between the control unit and the heat sink (58, Fig. 10), the control unit is positioned within the outer periphery of the housing in the plan view (Fig. 10), and the control unit is an elongated structure elongated along a third direction in the plan view (57, Fig. 10). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have provided the control unit and heat sink in any reasonable position including in the housing on the opposite side of the centerline in relation to the output axis and in any reasonable orientation within the housing of Masek so that the control unit defines the third direction, the boundary between the control unit and heat sink define the second angle, and their functions with regards to the motor maintained. This positioning is reasonable because 57 and 58 would be positioned in a way that allows for connection to the motor and could be used in combination with or instead of balance wheel 31. It is noted that included with WO 2019/047586 is a machine translation that discloses “circuit board 57 and heat sink 58 connected to the motor 51”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Masek with the control unit and heat sink, as taught by WO 2019/047586, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masek (1,832,993) in view of WO 2019/047586 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. (2023/0049058).
Masek in view of WO 2019/047586 disclose the invention but fail to disclose the output axis is perpendicular to the first direction.
You et al. teach it is known in the art of hedge trimmers/cutters to incorporate a motor orientation where the output axis is perpendicular to the first direction. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any reasonable motor orientation as long as the rotary power of the motor can be transferred to the working portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Masek in view of WO 2019/047586 with the motor orientation, as taught by You et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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 D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
08 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights