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 12/30/2025 in which claims 1-13 are pending and claims 1 and 13 are currently amended.
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 1-13 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 recites, that the control unit is “configured to forward the notifications when the clutch is disengaged such that the electric motor is freewheeling.” However, the term “forward the notifications” is unclear in the context of the claim. The notification is previously defined as being provided via a motion of the electric power tool and/or a characteristic sound pattern. It is therefore unclear what it means to “forward” such a notification, as motion and sound are not typically “forwarded” and the claim does not specify how or to what the notification is forwarded.
Additionally, the claim 1 fails to clearly define the relationship between (i) varying motor torque to produce the motion and/or sound pattern and (ii) forwarding the notification when the clutch is disengaged. It is unclear whether the production of the notification is conditioned upon the clutch being disengaged, or whether the notification is produced independently and merely “forwarded” when the clutch is disengaged. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is ambiguous.
Claim 8 recites that the control unit is “configured to cache an event for later communication to the user” and “in response to the clutch being disengaged, generating a corresponding predetermined torque pattern.” However, the claim does not clearly define what is meant by “the event” nor does it specific how the recited event relates to the previously recited condition or notification. Additionally, it is unclear how the cached event is communicated to the user, and whether the generation of the predetermined torque pattern in response to clutch disengagement constitutes the communication of the cached event or is a separate function. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 12 recites that “the notification is received via the interface and forwarded to the user by varying the electric motor torque.” However, it is unclear what is meant by the notifications being “received by the interface” as the claim does not specify the source from which the notification is received. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “forwarded to the user by varying the electric motor torque.” The claim does not clearly define whether varying the motor torque constitutes generating the notification, transmitting an already received notification, or otherwise conveying information to the user. Accordingly, the manner in which the notification is forwarded is unclear.
Claim 13 recites, both detecting a condition to be communicated to the user and detecting when the clutch is disengaged such that the electric motor is freewheeling. However, the claim does not clearly define the relationship between these detecting steps, i.e. whether the clutch disengagement corresponds to the condition to be communicated or represents a separate condition., or how these detections relate to the notification. Accordingly, it is unclear under what circumstances the notification is provided.
Additionally, claim 13 recites, “providing the notification… such that a motion of the electric power tool and/or a characteristic sound pattern is produced.” It is unclear whether the recited notification corresponds to the motion, the sound pattern, or both, and how the notification is defined in relation to the detected condition. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the Applicant asserts that “the notifications” refer to the same notifications previously recited, the claim still recited that the power tool is “configured to forward the notifications.” The meaning of “forward” remains unclear in the context of the claim, particularly where the notification is defined as being provided via motion of the tool and/or a characteristic sound pattern. The claim does not specify how such a notification is “forwarded” or what action is performed by the power tool in this regard.
Additionally, it remains unclear how the forwarding of the notification relates to the recited clutch disengagement condition, i.e. whether the production of the notification is conditioned on the clutch being disengaged or whether the notification is produced independently and merely forwarded during those conditions. Accordingly, the scope of the claim remains unclear.
Claims Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-13 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of features including an electric chain saw that varies the motor torque to produce a characteristic sound pattern using field-oriented control when the clutch is disengaged and the motor is freewheeling as claimed. However, these claims cannot be considered to be “allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph set forth in this Office action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
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