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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/08/2026 in which claims 1-14, 33-38 are pending, claims 33-38 are new and claims 1 and 5 are currently amended.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 36-38 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1-35 are directed to a circular saw with a transmission having two motors, gears, and pulleys.
Claims 36-38 are directed to a circular saw with a shoe and a singular motor and a handle with a trigger
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 36-38 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 34 is 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 34 recites, “the two bearing assemblies including a bearing disposed in the bearing seat.” It is unclear if one or two bearings are being set forth to be disposed in the singular bearing seat
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, 4-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572).
In regards to claim 1, Ishihara discloses a circular saw (30) comprising: a first motor (12) including a first motor output shaft (16) coupled to a first pinion (reduction gear 20; FIG 1); a second motor including a second motor output shaft coupled to a second pinion; and a transmission including: a master gear (reduction gear 21) configured to engage the first pinion (20) and the second pinion, an input pulley (pulley 24) coupled to the master gear (21), the input pulley (24) having a first diameter (per Figure 1), and an output pulley (pulley 25) coupled to an output shaft (main shaft 22) configured to rotate a saw blade (circular saws or blades 30; col. 3, lines 11-13), the output pulley (25) having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter (24; see Fig. 2); wherein the first motor ( 12) and the second motor are located rearward of a trailing edge of the saw blade (30; fig. 2)..
Ishihara discloses the claimed invention but for the highlighted limitations of the second motor with the second pinion connected to the master gear. Attention is directed to the Zanella reference. Zanella teaches that the power rating of motors for various gardening tools may be adjusted by increasing or decreasing motor size. Zanella further teaches that using two motors driving a common driven “master” gear provides increased torque output while allowing the use of smaller motors and smaller gears. In addition, the diametrically opposed arrangement of the pinions balances radial loads and improves transmission efficiency while reducing component size, cost and overall machine dimensions.
It would have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive arrangement of Ishihara to include the dual motor torque combining transmission taught by Zanella. In Zanella, two motors drive respective pinions that mesh with a common driven gear such that the torques of the motors are combined, thereby increasing the available output torque while permitting the use of smaller motors and smaller gears. Zanella further explains that the diametrically opposite arrangement of the pinions reduces radial thrust forces and improved transmission efficiency. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate such a torque combining gear arrangement into Ishihara in order to provide more efficient torque transmission and balanced loading between the motors while driving the belt system of Ishihara. Because the existing motor 12 of Ishihara is positioned rearward of the trailing edge of the saw blade 30, positioning the added motor adjacent to motor 12 in accordance with the side-by-side motor arrangement taught by Zanella would likewise locate the second motor rearward of the trailing edge of saw blade 30. Such that placement would preserve the existing compact motor and drive arrangement of Isihara while obtaining the predictable benefit of the dual motor drive arrangement taught by Zanella. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to locate the second motor along the motor 12 within the same rearward motor region because that placement would accommodate an additional motor without interfering with the blade or the workpiece cutting region and would require minimal alteration of the existing drive arrangement.
Thereby the modified device of Ishihara discloses a first motor ( 12 / 12 Zanella) including a first motor output shaft (Ishihara 16) coupled to a first pinion (pinion 20 / 14 Zanella ); a second motor (13 Zanella) including a second motor output shaft coupled to a second pinion (15 Zanella); and a transmission including: a master gear (20 / 16 Zanella) configured to engage the first pinion (21 / 14 Zanella) and the second pinion (15 Zanella); wherein the first motor ( 12 / 12 Zanella) and the second motor (13 Zanella) are located rearward of a trailing edge of the saw blade (30; fig. 2)..
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Ishihara discloses wherein the transmission further includes: a belt (28) positioned around the input pulley (24) and the output pulley (25).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Ishihara discloses a handle assembly (54); an upper saw blade housing (cover 35); and a housing (frame 14) coupled to the handle assembly (54) enclosing the transmission (fig. 6), the first motor (12), and the second motor (as modified by Zanella), and wherein the first motor (12) and the second motor (as modified by Zanella) are positioned between the handle assembly (54) and the upper saw blade housing (14; e.g. viewed left to right per Fig. 6).
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Ishihara discloses a stationary shaft (18) non-rotatably coupled to a housing (14) enclosing the transmission, wherein the master gear (32) and the input pulley (36) are coupled to the stationary shaft (18) via two bearing assemblies (19/19).
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Ishihara discloses wherein the master gear (21) and the input pulley (24) are coupled together.
In regards to claim 11, the modified device of Yusuke discloses wherein the output pulley (37) has an output pulley rotation speed that is greater than a master gear rotation speed of the master gear (32; “Moreover, since a large reduction ratio can be obtained, even if the rotational force is transmitted at a constant speed or increased speed by the transmission mechanism, the rotational speed can be sufficiently reduced as a whole and transmitted to the saw blade 14b”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572) and in further view of Iwata (U.S. Patent 11,565,333). In regards to claim 3, Ishihara discloses transmitting toque from the motor drive of the blade using a belt and pulley transmission but does not disclose that the belt (28) is a toothed timing belt. Iwata teaches a power transmission system for a circular saw utilizing a toothed timing blet to provide positive engagement between the belt and pulleys and prevent slippage due to torque transmission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the belt and pulley transmission of Ishihara to utilize the toothed timing belt system taught by Iwata in order to provide more reliable torque transmission and prevent belt slippage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572) and in further view of Kahilahti et al. (U.S. Patent 5,094,280), herein referred to as Kahilahti.
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Ishihara discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the type of gear and thus does not disclose wherein the first pinion, the second pinion and the master gear are straight cut gears. Kahilahti teaches a power transmission system for a saw blade utilizing a spur gear assembly, in which primary gearwheels driven by motors mesh with a secondary gearwheel to transmit torque. Spur gears represent a well-known gear type used for transmitting rotational motion between parallel shafts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ straight cut (spur) gears in the transmission of Ishihara as taught by Kahilahti because spur gears provide a simple and efficient mechanism for transmitting torque between rotating members.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572).
Ishihara discloses a gear transmission (21/20) for transferring torque between the motor and the circular saw. However, Ishihara does not explicitly teach that the transmission achieves at least a 4:1 gear reduction. The selection of a particular gear ratio represents a design choice that would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to obtain desired output speed and torque characteristics. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a 4:1 reduction ration for the gear transmission of Ishihara because gear ratios are routinely selected to achieve the desired balance between output torque and rotational speed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). In regards to claim 9, Ishihara discloses a housing (14) enclosing the transmission, the first motor (12/ 12 Zanella), and the second motor (13 Zanella), the housing (14) having a width along a rotational axis of a saw blade but does not explicitly disclose that the width is 9.5 cm or less. The selection of a particular housing dimension represents a design choice that would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art based on design constraints such as compactness, ergonomics, and available space of internal components. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dimension the housing of Ishihara to have a width of 9.5 cm of less in order to provide a compact device. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). In regards to claim 10, the modified device of Ishihara discloses a rotational saw flange (mounted to the end of shaft 14) best shown in Figure 2, However, Yusuke does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the flange and therefore is silent as to the flange having a diameter of 3.2 cm or less. The selection of a particular flange diameter represents a design choice that would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art based on design constraints such as compactness, blade size, and available space of internal components. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a flange diameter of 3.2 cm or less as a matter of routine optimization in order to provide a compact saw assembly and properly support the circular saw blade. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Ishihara discloses a circular saw inducing a motor housed within a compact housing for driving the saw blade. However, Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the circular saw has a power density greater than or equal to 1 W/cm3. Power density represents a result effective variable determined by the relationship between the motor output power and the volume of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing motor power, reducing housing size, or adjusting the internal configuration would increase the power density of the saw. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the circular saw of Ishihara to have a power density of at least 1 W/cm3 as a matter of routine design optimization to provide a compact device with adequate output power.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Ishihara discloses a circular saw inducing a motor housed within a compact housing for driving the saw blade. However, Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the circular saw has a power to weight ratio of 700 W/kg or more. The power to weight ratio represents a result effective variable determined by the relationship between the motor output power and the overall mass of the device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing motor output power, reducing the overall weight of the device, or adjusting component section and configuration would increase the power to weight ratio. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the circular saw of Ishihara to achieve a power to weight ratio of at least 700 W/kg as a matter of routine design optimization in order to provide a lightweight tool capable of delivering sufficient output power.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Ishihara discloses a circular saw configured to cut a workpiece. However, Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the blade has a diameter of 18.415 cm and is operable to generate a depth of cut of at least 6.6675 cm. The diameter of the circular saw blade and the resulting depth of cut represent design parameters area selected depending on the desired cutting capacity of the saw. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing or decreasing the blade diameter correspondingly adjusts the achievable depth of cut. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select a blade diameter of approximately 18.415 cm and a corresponding depth of cut of approximately 6.6675cm as a matter of routine design choice in order to provide a circular saw capable for cutting to the desired depth.
Claims 33-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572) and in further view of Ducharme (U.S. Patent 4,706,535). In regards to claim 33 and 34, the modified device of Ishihara does not set forth that input pulley includes an extension received in a cavity of the master gear, nor that the extension defines a bearing seat for a bearing. Ducharme sets forth a scoring saw with a pulley drive system. Ducharme discloses that bearing 21 is received around the extended neck portion 23’ of pulley 23, and gear 24 is rigidly secured around that same neck portion. Thus, 535 teaches consolidating the bearing support, pulley, and gear into one compact coaxial assembly. (col. 3, lines 14-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishihara such that pulley 24 includes an axially extending neck portion received within a central cavity opening of the master gear and defining bearing seats for the existing bearings 19, as taught by Ducharme. One of ordinary skill would have made the modification to reduce the axial space occupied by the drive components, maintain coaxial alignment of the gear and pulley and simplify the supporting structure, with the predictable results of compactly supporting the combined gear and pulley assembly for rotation.
Thereby the modified device of Ishihara discloses wherein the input pulley (24) includes an extension (e.g. 23’ Ducharme)that is received within a cavity of the master gear (21/ spur gear 24 Ducharme) , wherein the extension (23’) defines a bearing seat for bearing (21 Ducharme).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Patent 4,145,086) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572) and in further view of Iwata (U.S. Patent 11,565,333). In regards to claim 35, the modified device of Ishihara does not disclose a fan coupled to the first motor output shaft between the first motor and first pinion. Iwata discloses a miter saw with a motor that connects to the saw blade via a pulley system. A fan is set on the motor shaft between the motor and the belt system that is designed to cool the motor body by drawing air through the intake port of the motor housing and exhausting the air from an exhaust port (col. 7, lines 8-15) Thereby, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the fan of Iwata on the first motor output shaft of Ishihara, between the first motor and the first pinion, to draw cooling air through the motor housing and thereby cool the first motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-35 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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights