DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the non-final office action on the merits of Application No. 18/040,428 filed on 02/03/2023. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 23, 53, and 55-56 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The certified copy has been filed with application no SE2151238-9, filed on 10/08/2021.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The specification in page 26, lines 24-discloses “As illustrated in Fig. 3B, the centrifugal clutch 34 has a proximal side 34a facing the electric motor 22 and a distal side 34b facing away from the electric motor 22, and the saw chain drive sprocket 32 is rigidly connected to the driven member 38 of the centrifugal clutch 34 on the proximal side 34a of the centrifugal clutch”, but the drawing in fig. 3B shows the proximal side 34a is facing away from the electric motor 22 and the distal side 34b is facing the electric motor 22 and the saw chain drive sprocket 32 is rigidly connected to the driven member 38 of the centrifugal clutch 34 on the distal side 34b of the centrifugal clutch. Clarification is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: fig. 3B shows the proximal as 34a which is facing away from the electric motor and the distal side 34b is facing the electric motor. The specification and claim discloses the proximal side 34a is facing the electric motor. It is suggested to change the character numeral for distal side and the proximal side in fig. 3B. For example, figure 10 shows the correction character numeral.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12, which depend from claim 1, appear to have features that combine multiple different embodiments. For example, regarding claim 12, wherein a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the distal side of the slip clutch as per claim 1 is from FIG. 10, whereas a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the proximal side of the slip clutch as per claim 12 is not in FIG. 10, but is in FIG. 3B. As such, there is no working example of the combination recited in claim 12. Furthermore, there is no disclosure in the specification as to how one might alter FIG. 10 or FIG. 3B to include both these respective features into one combination. Therefore, there is no direction from the inventor as to how one might create the claimed combination. In this case, the combination of having the same a saw chain drive sprocket connected simultaneously to the distal side and the proximal side, per the combination of claim 12, is pointless.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim phrase “wherein the slip clutch has a proximal side facing the electric motor and a distal side facing away from the electric motor, wherein a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the distal side of the slip clutch” in last para renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear which one is proximal side and which one is distal side and how they are defined. The specification in page 26 discloses “As illustrated in Fig. 3B, the centrifugal clutch 34 has a proximal side 34a facing the electric motor 22 and a distal side 34b facing away from the electric motor 22, and the saw chain drive sprocket 32 is rigidly connected to the driven member 38 of the centrifugal clutch 34 on the proximal side 34a of the centrifugal clutch”, but the drawing in fig. 3B shows that the proximal side is 34a and distal side is 34b and the proximal side 34a is facing away from the electric motor 22 and the distal side 34b is facing the electric motor 22. However, in figure 10, the proximal side 34a is facing the electric motor 22 and the distal side 34b is facing away from the electric motor 22. Does it mean the proximal side always faces the electric motor and the distal side always faces away from the electric motor 22. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, the claim phrase “wherein a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the proximal side of the slip clutch” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 recites that wherein a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the distal side of the slip clutch. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 23 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5-6, 12-13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANAGIHARA et al. (US 20140165946 A1) in view of Roetker (US 20220178066 A1)and further in view of King (US 20230070451 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YANAGIHARA discloses a handheld battery-powered (e.g. handle 107, battery pack 337see fig. 1, paras 45-46 and 51) chainsaw (100, figs. 1-3, para 34) comprising:
an electric motor (141, fig. 1) and
a transmission arrangement (e.g. all the transmission element between power source (e.g. engine 112, electric motor 141) and the chain saw 105 as shown in fig. 1) coupled to the electric motor (141, fig. 2),
a cooling fan (148, fig. 2),
wherein the electric motor (141) is configured to drive a saw chain (105, fig. 1, para 34) via the transmission arrangement (fig. 1)
wherein the transmission arrangement comprises a slip clutch (e.g. centrifugal 127, fig. 2, para 40, centrifugal clutch is a slip clutch by nature), comprising a drive member (e.g. a clutch shoe, not shown, see para 40 ) configured to receive rotary power from the electric motor (141, para 39) and a driven member (e.g. clutch outer 127a, output shaft 131, fig. 2, para 40) configured to transmit rotary power to the saw chain (105), wherein the slip clutch (127) is configured to at least partly disengage the electric motor (141) from the saw chain (105) by enabling a slip (see para 43) in the engagement between the drive member (e.g. clutch shoe) and the driven member (131),
wherein the slip clutch (127, fig. 2) is positioned on a first axial side (e.g. the side pointed by 127 in fig. 2) of the electric motor (141),
wherein the cooling fan (148) is connected to an output (147a) and positioned on a second axial side (e.g. the side pointed by 141 in fig. 2) of the motor (141), opposite to said first axial side,
wherein the slip clutch (127) is movable between an engaged state, in which the slip clutch is configured to drive the saw chain (105), and a disengaged state, in which the drive member can rotate freely without driving the saw chain (105), (see para 43)
wherein the slip clutch (e.g. 127) is configured as a centrifugal clutch (see para 40), and
wherein the slip clutch (127) has a proximal side facing the electric motor (147) and a distal side (e.g. the side of a clutch outer 127a, fig. 2) facing away from the electric motor (147), wherein a saw chain drive sprocket (e.g. not shown, the sprocket of the chain saw 105) is connected to the driven member (131) of the slip clutch (127) on the distal side of the slip clutch (127).
However, YANAGIHARA fails to disclose a saw chain drive sprocket and wherein the cooling fan (148) is connected to an output shaft and wherein the output shaft has a second-end connection interface, and wherein the second-end connection interface is a keyed interface to rotationally lock the output shaft to the cooling fan.
Roetker teaches a cooling fan (e.g. cooling fan 242, blades 264, figs. 4-8, para 49) as shown in figs 4 and 7 is connected to an output shaft (e.g. a motor shaft 206, fig. 4), and wherein the output shaft (e.g. the motor shaft 206, fig. 4) has a second-end connection interface (e.g. 268), and wherein the second-end connection interface is a keyed interface (via keyed aperture 268, see fig. 7, para 49) to rotationally lock the output shaft (206) to the cooling fan (242).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA by adding a keyed interface between the output shaft and the cooling fan as taught by Roetker, so that output shaft and the cooling fan will be secured and can rotate at the same speed.
King teaches a similar kind of chainsaw (e.g. 100, fig. 1) wherein a saw chain drive sprocket (e.g. 112, fig. 1B) is connected to a driven member (has no character numeral, see fig. 1C) of the slip clutch (111) on the distal side of the slip clutch (111).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA / Roetker by adding a saw chain drive sprocket as taught by King, so that the motive force from the powerhead to the cutting chain can be transferred smoothly and reliably.
(Please note: When the rotational speed of the crank shaft or the rotational speed of the electric motor is lower than a predetermined speed, slip-enabling state takes place, see para 43 of YANAGIHARA )
Regarding claim 2, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100, fig. 1) as modified according to claim 1, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the transmission arrangement is configured to provide a transmission ratio of 1:1 between the electric motor (141) and a saw chain sprocket (112 of King, after modification) meshing with the saw chain (105).
Regarding claim 3, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the slip clutch is configured to transfer a slip torque, while slipping of between 2Nm and 4.5 Nm.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the slip torque of modified YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King and thus the claimed slip torque cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, after modification, the chainsaw would have the slip clutch configured to transfer a slip torque, while slipping of between 2Nm and 4.5 Nm.
Regarding claim 5, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the slip clutch (127, fig.2) is configured to transit between the engaged state and the disengaged state in response to a change in rotational speed of the electric motor (141). (see para 43 “Here, however, by means of the centrifugal clutch 127, rotation of the crank shaft 123 or the rotation axis of the electric motor 141 is not transmitted to the final output shaft 131 in a region in which rotation speed of the crank shaft 123 and the rotation axis of the electric motor 141 is lower than a predetermined speed, while it is transmitted to the final output shaft 131 in a region in which rotation speed of the crank shaft 123 and the rotation axis of the electric motor 141 is higher than the predetermined speed.”)
Regarding claim 6, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100, fig. 2) as modified according to claim 5, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the slip clutch (127) is configured to transit, in response to a change in rotational speed of the electric motor of the drive member, between a slip-enabling state, in which the drive member is enabled to slip in relation to the driven member (131), and a lock- up state, in which the slip clutch is configured to drive the saw chain without slipping. (see para 43)
Regarding claim 12, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses all the elements of the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, wherein the saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the distal side of the slip clutch.
While reference does not disclose wherein a saw chain drive sprocket (134) is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the proximal side of the slip clutch, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to reverse the a saw chain drive sprocket connection, by placing the saw chain drive sprocket on the proximal side of the slip clutch, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. (MPEP 2144.04)
Therefore, after modification, the chainsaw would have wherein a saw chain drive sprocket is connected to the driven member of the slip clutch on the proximal side of the slip clutch.
Regarding claim 13, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100, fig. 1) as modified according to claim 1, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the electric motor (141, para 41, fig. 2) has a rotor (147, fig. 2, para 43) configured to be rotated by a stator (e.g. 143, 145, para 42, fig. 2), the rotor (147) having an outer rotor diameter (e.g. a diameter of a cylindrical peripheral wall 147a), and an output shaft (e.g. 123, para 39, fig. 2) drivingly connected to the drive member of the slip clutch (e.g. a clutch shoe fig. 2, para 40), but fails to disclose wherein a ratio between the rotor diameter and the shaft diameter is between 2.5 and 4.8.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the diameter size of rotor and the output shaft of modified YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric, and thus the claimed rotor diameter and output diameter ratio cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric, teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, after modification, the chainsaw would have wherein a ratio between the rotor diameter and the shaft diameter is between 2.5 and 4.8.
Regarding claim 23, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the cooling fan (148) coupled to always run with a drive member side of the slip clutch (127, fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANAGIHARA et al. (US 20140165946 A1) in view of Roetker (US 20220178066 A1) and King (US 20230070451 A1) and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20150308521 A1).
Regarding claim 7, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100, fig. 1) as modified according to claim 6, YANAGIHARA further discloses wherein the slip clutch (127) is configured to transit between the disengaged and engaged states at a predetermined clutch engagement speed (see para 43), but fails to disclose the predetermined clutch engagement speed, above which the slip clutch assumes the engaged state, and to transit from the slip-enabling state to the lock-up state at a predetermined slip limit speed above which the slip clutch assumes the lock-up state, wherein the slip limit speed is at least 200 rpm higher than the engagement speed, wherein the slip limit speed is based on a rotational speed of the electric motor.
Smith teaches a slip clutch (16, fig. 1) of a drive wherein a predetermined clutch engagement speed (e.g. clutch slip speed, see para 12), above which the slip clutch assumes the engaged state, and to transit from the slip-enabling state to the lock-up state at a predetermined slip limit speed (e.g. predetermined clutch slip speed) above which the slip clutch assumes the lock-up state. (see para 12” The method further includes providing an open loop control of clutch pressure by fully engaging the clutch for a predetermined time, setting the clutch engagement pressure to a predetermined pressure, thus allowing a predetermined clutch slip speed, and monitoring the clutch slip speed, wherein the clutch engagement pressure is maintained when the clutch slip speed is equal to or less than the predetermined clutch slip speed. When the clutch slip speed is greater than the predetermined clutch slip speed, the clutch engagement pressure may be increased to fully engage the clutch for a predetermined time.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King by substituting the clutch with a centrifugal clutch as taught by Smith, so that a smooth engagement and disengagement can be achieved, therefore, this produces extended service life of the drive train components, greater efficiency and smother operation of the drive. (see abstract of Smith)
However, Smith fails to teach wherein the slip limit speed is at least 200 rpm higher than the engagement speed.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the speed of the clutch based on the engagement and slipping of modified YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King /Smith, and thus the claimed clutch speed cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King /Smith teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, after modification, the chainsaw would have the predetermined clutch engagement speed, above which the slip clutch assumes the engaged state, and to transit from the slip-enabling state to the lock-up state at a predetermined slip limit speed above which the slip clutch assumes the lock-up state, wherein the slip limit speed is at least 200 rpm higher than the engagement speed.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANAGIHARA et al. (US 20140165946 A1) in view of Roetker (US 20220178066 A1) and King (US 20230070451 A1) and further in view of Gilpatrick (US 20110017168 A1).
Regarding claim 8, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100, fig. 1) as modified according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the slip clutch is inertia actuated.
Gilpatrick teaches a weighted centrifugal clutch (212, figs. 1-2C, para 28) which is inertia actuated via an auxiliary flywheel (262, fig. 2C). ( see para 28)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King by substituting the centrifugal clutch with the centrifugal clutch with a flywheel as taught by Gilpatrick, so that a smooth engagement and disengagement can be achieved and the motor can be protected.
Regarding claim 10, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, wherein the driven member (127a, fig. 2) comprises a clutch drum, but fails to disclose the clutch drum having a diameter of between 60 mm and 90 mm, and the drive member comprises a set of two or three friction shoes which are resiliently connected to each other by resilient elements, wherein each of the friction shoes has a respective weight of between 30 g and 70 g, and each of the resilient elements has a spring constant of between 35 nm/mm and 60 N/mm.
Gilpatrick teaches a weighted centrifugal clutch (212, figs. 1-2C, para 28) wherein the driven member (278,fig. 2C) comprises a clutch drum (266), and the drive member (254) comprises friction shoes (260, para 28) which are resiliently connected to each other by resilient elements (264, fig. 2C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King by substituting the centrifugal clutch with the centrifugal clutch as taught by Gilpatrick, so that a smooth engagement and disengagement can be achieved and the motor can be protected.
But YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric fails to disclose the clutch drum having a diameter of between 60 mm and 90 mm, wherein each of the friction shoes (260) has a respective weight of between 30 g and 70 g, and each of the resilient elements (264) has a spring constant of between 35 nm/mm and 60 N/mm.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the diameter size of the clutch drum, weight of the friction shoes and spring constant of the resilient elements of modified YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric, and thus the claimed clutch drum diameter size or friction shoe weight or spring constant cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King / Gilpatric, teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, after modification, the chainsaw would have the clutch drum having a diameter of between 60 mm and 90 mm, wherein each of the friction shoes has a respective weight of between 30 g and 70 g, and each of the resilient elements has a spring constant of between 35 nm/mm and 60 N/mm.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANAGIHARA et al. (US 20140165946 A1) in view of Roetker (US 20220178066 A1) and King (US 20230070451 A1) and further in view of Braun et al. (US 20200269409 A1).
Regarding claim 15, YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King discloses the handheld battery-powered chainsaw (100) as modified according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a mechanical brake arrangement movable between a braking position, in which the mechanical brake arrangement is configured to engage with the transmission arrangement to brake the rotation of the driven member, and a released position, in which the driven member is free to rotate.
Braun teaches a similar kind of chainsaw (10, figs. 1-10) wherein a mechanical brake arrangement (16, fig. 2, para 31) movable between a braking position, in which the mechanical brake arrangement (16) is configured to engage with the transmission arrangement (26, fig.2) to brake the rotation of the driven member (24), and a released position, in which the driven member (24) is free to rotate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANAGIHARA / Roetker/King by adding a brake arrangement as taught by Braun, so that a safely measure can be obtained in a case of an abrupt operation of the chainsaw so that the chains can be stopped as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53 and 55-56 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 53, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious wherein in response to the slip clutch remaining at a slip limit speed for a time limit exceed a limit time, the electric motor is disengaged, in combination with the other elements required by the claim.
For example, prior art of record
Shimizu et al. (US 20130180118 A1) discloses a method of controlling an electric motor (3) to selectively drive a saw chain (11, fig. 2) in a chainsaw (1) comprising a clutch (18, fig. 3), the method comprising: determining a state of the clutch (18); and based on the determined clutch state, adjusting a torque (e.g. torque of the electric motor) or rotational speed (e.g. speed of the motor 3) of the electric motor (3), and/or generating an alert to an operator of the chainsaw (11), (see para 32, fig. 5)
wherein determining a state of the clutch (18) comprises determining a present rotational speed of the electric motor (e.g. the present speed of the motor), but fails to disclose comparing the present rotational speed to a driven shaft speed and wherein in response to the slip clutch remaining at a slip limit speed for a time limit exceed a limit time, the electric motor is disengaged.
ITO et al. (US 20230256572 A1) teaches a method of controlling an electric motor (e.g. 4, fig. 1) comprising a clutch (WSC, fig. 1) wherein determining a state of the clutch (WSC) comprises determining a present rotational speed of the electric motor (4) and comparing the present rotational speed of the electric motor to a driven shaft speed (e.g. speed of shaft 34). (see abstract and para 29)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu by adding a slip state and adjusting the torque of the electric motor as taught by ITO, so that the stability of the clutch can be achieved by reducing an inertia shock at the time of clutch engagement, (see para 3 of ITO) therefore enhance the drivability of the chainsaw.
Claims 55-56 are allowed as they depend on claim 53.
Remarks and Response
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are fully persuasive. A new reference has been applied (YANAGIHARA et al. (US 20140165946 A1) that discloses the new limitation, as appears above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
BUXTON et al. (US 20220410425 A1) discloses a similar type of chainsaw (20, fig. 1) wherein a battery pack (68) is removably coupled to a bottom part of a handle portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Jacob S. Scott can be reached on 5712703415. 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.
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
