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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025, 07/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Therefore, line 1 of the abstract “The present disclosure relates to” should be avoid.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference “15” is called both the heating conductor in page 4 and the heating element in other pages. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “at least one heating element” or “a first heating element…a second heating element” in claims 1-2, 4 invokes 112F because first, "element" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "element" is modified by functional language including “configured to provide power …”; and third, the "element" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "heating" preceding element describes the function, not the structure of the element.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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 6-7, the phrase “at least one heating element in one of the rear handle, and the front handle, and a temperature sensor” is unclear. As it is written, it is confusing whether the at least one heating element is in one of the rear handle, the front handle, and a temperature sensor or one of the rear handle and the front handle or one of the rear handle and a temperature sensor …since the conjunction language “, and” is connecting with three limitations.
Claim 1, the middle paragraph, …based on a reading from the temperature sensor” is unclear what the temperature sensor read to.
Claim 1, the last paragraph, “a steady state power” in the recitation is not clear. As the claim is written, it does not provide a guidance to understand what the “steady state power” is. What is the constitution of the steady state?
Also, claim 1, the last paragraph is confusing; it appears there is no controller and it is unclear how and what the heating unit (at least one heating element) can be able to perform “to provide, upon activation, a temporary power boost to the first and second handles and, subsequently, to provide a steady state power to the first and second handles, lower than the power of the power boost”. Claim 6 has the same issue of without a controller that causes unclear how “the power boost is continuously controlled”.
Claim 2 recites “a first heating element…a second heating element” is unclear whether the first and second heating elements refer to the at least one heating element in claim 1 or additional heating elements.
Claim 5 “the duration and level of the power boost” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers inherently performance or introduced new performance.
Claim 7 recites “a PI-regulator” that is unclear what it the “PI” is stand for since both the original specification and the claim do not define it.
Claim 7 recites “power is ….based on a temperature reading and a PI-regulator” is unclear whether the PI-regulator is the temperature sensor in claim 1 or a different regulator (if it is different from the sensor in claim 1, it must be shown in drawing).
Claim 9 “a short-range communication interface” is unclear. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “short-range” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “short-range”. If it means a Bluetooth interface, amend it as a Bluetooth interface as discussed in page 3 of the specification.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leufen et al (US 8667955) hereinafter Leufen in view of Breton (WO 2020/019054, art of record).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Leufen shows a
approximately in the elongated direction of the guide bar (Figure 1), wherein the
wherein the heating unit is configured to provide power to the first and/or
second heating element based on a reading from the temperature sensor (see Col. 5, lines 8-54 “for example, a temperature feedback by the heating element 13 of the first electrical load 27 to the control unit 40 can be expedient, as is indicated by the dashed line in FIG. 2… the first heater unit 113 of the carburetor heater, as well as the second electrical load, that is the second heater unit 133 as a handle heater and/or the further heater unit 134 as a second handle heater, can be supplied with a sufficient amount of electrical power”), and
wherein the heating unit is configured to provide, upon activation, a temporary
power boost to the first and second handles and, subsequently, to provide a steady
state power (Col. 2, line 33 “For providing essentially constant power to a heater unit in a work apparatus having a combustion engine”) to the first and second handles, lower than the power of the power boost (Col. 6, lines 4-20 “…a higher loading of the generator results at the same time, this being accompanied by a drop in the generator voltage. The voltage monitoring circuit 41 of the control unit 40 detects this voltage drop in a pause P, because, during the pause P, the generator voltage as a result of the permanent electrical loading through the second load (handle heater) is lower than without the load resulting from the handle heater.”.
However, Leufen silently discusses the heating unit to be operated by a battery.
The heating unit operated by a battery is well known in the art, for an example,
Breton shows a heating unit (figure 3) in a handle (H) that is operated by a battery (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the power generator (23) of Leufen to be a battery, as taught by Breton, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose of providing power to the heating unit and in order to allow the heating unit can be independently power source and reduce electrical load (power) from the combustion engine.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Leufen shows that the at least one heating element comprises a first heating element (34) in the rear handle and a second heating element (33) in the front handle(Figure 1 of Leufen).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Leufen shows that the temperature sensor, however, it is unclear whether it is located in the rear handle or not.
It is well known to have the sensor and the controller of Leufen is located in the rear handle. Since claim has not recited that having any specific location of the sensor solve any stated problem or is a criticality for any particular purpose and it appears that the sensor between the chainsaw housing (a safe location) would perform equally well while being in the rear handle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, as per MPEP 2144.04(VI)C, this constitutes a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device. therefore, rearranging the sensor in the rear handle has no effect on how the device performs, and thus this is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Leufen shows that the first and second heating elements are series connected (Figure 2 of Leufen).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Leufen shows that a duration and a level of the power boost is determined based on a temperature acquired at start or activation of the chainsaw (see the discussion in claim 1 and see Col. 4, lines 40-66 of Leufen).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Leufen shows that the power boost is continuously controlled (as it is written, it is unclear for how long the power boost is continuously controlled. See the Figure 2 of Leufen and all the discussions above, the power boost is continuously controlled).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Leufen shows that power is continuously controlled based on a temperature reading (of the sensor) and a PI-regulator (the controller 40-41 of Leufen).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Leufen shows that a compartment for a battery (28, see Figures 3-4 of Breton).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Leufen shows that a short-range communications interface (as it is written, it is unclear what the short-range communications interface is or is for. Therefore, see Figure 2 of Leufen, the controller 40 and the voltage monitoring circuit 41 is connecting and controlling all heating elements within the chainsaw that is the short-range communications interface).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/30/2025