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Claims 15-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
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 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke et al. (JP 6421495 (herein referred to as Yusuke) in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572).
In regards to claim 1, Yusuke discloses a circular saw (10) comprising: a first motor (13) including a first motor output shaft (13a) coupled to a first pinion (pinion gear 31; FIG 7); a second motor including a second motor output shaft coupled to a second pinion; and a transmission including: a master gear (first gear 32) configured to engage the first pinion (31) and the second pinion, an input pulley (connection pulley 36) coupled to the master gear (32), the input pulley (36) having a first diameter (per Figure 7), and an output pulley (final pulley 37) coupled to an output shaft (blade shaft 14) configured to rotate a saw blade (e.g. 14b), the output pulley (37) having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter (“the diameter of the final pulley 37 is smaller than the diameter of the connection pulley 36”).
Yusuke 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 Yusuke to include the dual motor torque combining transmission taught by Zanella. In Zanella, two motors driving 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 incorporated such a torque combining gear arrangement into Yusuke in order to provide more efficient torque transmission and balanced loading between the motors while driving the belt system of YUSUKE.
Thereby the modified device of Yusuke discloses a first motor Yusuke 13 / 12 Zanella) including a first motor output shaft (Yusuke 13a) coupled to a first pinion (pinion gear 31; FIG 7 / / 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 (first gear 32 / 16 Zanella) configured to engage the first pinion (31 / 14 Zanella) and the second pinion (15 Zanella).
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Yusuke discloses wherein the transmission further includes: a belt (38) positioned around the input pulley (36) and the output pulley (37).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Yusuke discloses a handle assembly (15); an upper saw blade housing (saw cover 14c); and a housing (main body 12) coupled to the handle assembly (15) enclosing the transmission, the first motor (13a), and the second motor (as modified by Zanella), and wherein the first motor and the second motor are positioned between the handle assembly (15) and the upper saw blade housing (14c).
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Yusuke discloses a stationary shaft (30a) coupled to a housing enclosing the transmission, wherein the master gear (32) and the input pulley (36) are coupled to the stationary shaft (30a) via two bearing assemblies (14a; see Figure 7).
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Yusuke discloses wherein the master gear (32) and the input pulley (36) 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572) and in further view of Iwata (U.S. Patent 11,565,333).
In regards to claim 3, Yusuke discloses transmitting toque from the motor drive of the blade using a belt and pulley transmission but does not disclose that the belt (38) is a toothed timing belt. Iwata teaches a power transmission system for a circular saw utilizing a toothed timing blet in order 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572).
Yusuke discloses a gear transmission for transferring torque between the motor and the circular saw. However, Yusuke 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). In regards to claim 9, Yusuke discloses a housing (main body 11) enclosing the transmission, the first motor (Yusuke 13 / 12 Zanella), and the second motor (13 Zanella), the housing (11) 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). In regards to claim 10, the modified device of Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Yusuke discloses a circular saw inducing a motor housed within a compact housing for driving the saw blade. However, Yusuke 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 configured the circular saw of Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149) herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Yusuke discloses a circular saw inducing a motor housed within a compact housing for driving the saw blade. However, Yusuke 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 Yusuke 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 Yusuke et al (JP642149 herein referred to as Yusuke in view of Zanella et al (GB2333572). Yusuke discloses a circular saw configured to cut a workpiece. However, Yusuke 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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