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Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, lines 12-13 recite, “a planar arrangement of the transmission are positioned adjacent to and arranged in parallel with a central longitudinal plane defined by the blade” [emphasis added]. This limitation has the following issues: It is unclear what defines the orientation of the “central longitudinal plane [of] the blade” with respect to the rest of the power-driven tool. It is unclear if Applicant intends for “central longitudinal plane” to refer to a central rotational axis of the blade or to a cutting plane of the blade which extends parallel to a longitudinal direction of the power-driven tool, i.e., a front-rear direction of the power-driven tool. Claim 21 recites, “wherein a power to volume ratio is in a range of approximately 2.0 W/cm3 to approximately 2.25 W/cm3.” It is unclear what feature of the power-driven tool defines the power to volume ratio recited in claim 21.
Claim 22 recites, “wherein a power to mass ratio is in a range of approximately 920 W/kg to approximately 1000 W/kg.” It is unclear what feature of the power-driven tool includes the power to mass ratio recited in claim 22.
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.
As best understood, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukinuki (US Publication 2008/0127795) in view of Holper (US Patent 3,168,665). Regarding claim 1, Fukinuki discloses a power-driven tool, comprising: a housing; a driving system (fig. 3) configured to transmit a driving force to a blade (16) coupled to a first longitudinal end portion of the housing (forward portion of handle 12), the driving system including: a multi-motor drive unit (fig. 3), the multi-motor drive unit including a plurality of motors (13, 13a); a pulley assembly coupled to the blade (16); and a transmission (i.e., gear mechanism,” para. 0014, line 19) coupled between [output shaft 14a] and the pulley assembly (fig. 3) and configured to transmit a driving force generated by the multi-motor drive unit to the pulley assembly to rotate the blade (para. 0014, lines 17-19), wherein a planar arrangement of the multi-motor drive unit and the pulley assembly (the multi-motor drive unit and the pulley assembly are arranged along the front-rear direction)., and a planar arrangement of the transmission are positioned adjacent to and arranged in parallel with a central longitudinal plane defined by the blade (the multi-motor drive unit and the pulley assembly are arranged along the front-rear direction).
Fukinuki the transmission is coupled between the multiple drive unit and the pulley assembly. However, Holper teaches it is known in the art of multi-motor drive units to “to provide a compact power unit of economic but reliable character utilizing a plurality of small motors … in a concentrically ganged assembly, [wherein] each motor ][is] provided with individual, automatic inductive clutching and its own reduction gear system driving a common output gear for the unit” (col. 1, lines 14-19). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the power-driven tool of Fukinuki substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Holper such that the transmission (i.e., individual reduction gear systems driving a common output gear to which the pulley assembly of Fukinuki is subsequently attached) is coupled between the multiple drive unit and the pulley assembly in order to facilitate a compact and economical driving arrangement for the power-driven tool (as expressed by Holper).
Status of Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112 without Prior Art Rejections
It is to be noted that claims 21 and 22 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pinzani et al (US Publication 2022/0143870) discloses a handheld cut-off saw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 August 16, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights