DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20200070265 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, Wang teaches a reciprocating power tool, comprising:
a housing (case of the tool); a power assembly comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0028);
a transmission assembly (assembly of 10 and 40, see Figure 1) connected to the power assembly;
a reciprocating assembly (30) connected to the transmission assembly and performing a reciprocating motion (see Figures 1-2); and
a balancing component (50) for balancing a motion of the reciprocating assembly; wherein a maximum distance a centroid of the reciprocating assembly moves is a first distance L1 (see Figures 1-2); a maximum distance a centroid of the balancing component moves is a second distance L2 (see Figures 1-2); a mass of the reciprocating assembly is a first mass M1, a mass of the balancing component is a second mass M2 (see Figure 1-2).
Wang fails to teach a ratio of a product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 to a product M1-L1 of the first mass M1 and the first distance L1 is a first ratio, AND the first ratio is greater than 1.05/1.07/1.1 or less than 1.5.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ratio of a ratio of a product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 to a product M1-L1 of the first mass M1 and the first distance L1 is a first ratio, AND the first ratio is greater than 1.05/1.07/1.1 or less than 1.5, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wang to have the specific ratio set forth in the claim and to have the range desired by the end user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang further teaches the balancing component moves along a direction substantially opposite to a motion direction of the reciprocating assembly to balance the reciprocating motion of the reciprocating assembly (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang further teaches the transmission assembly comprises a first transmission member (40), a transmission spindle (10), and an eccentric member (44), the transmission spindle extends along a spindle axis (24), the first transmission member is driven by the electric motor to rotate around the spindle axis, and the eccentric member rotates with the first transmission member to drive the reciprocating assembly to perform the reciprocating motion (See Figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Wang further teaches a centroid of the transmission assembly is a third centroid C3, and a distance between the third centroid C3 and the spindle axis is less than an unknown value.
Modified Wang fails to teach less than 2 mm or 1 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific value of less than 2 mm or 1 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Feldmann to have the specific value set forth in the claim to have the desired stoke distance wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang further teaches the electric motor comprises a motor shaft rotatable around a first axis, and the first axis extends substantially along a front and rear direction of the reciprocating power tool (See Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang further teaches the reciprocating assembly is mountable with a working accessory for an operation (blade 37 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang further teaches a total mass of the working accessory and the reciprocating assembly is a third mass M3 (see Figure 1).
Wang fails to teach the product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 is greater than a product M3-L1 of the third mass M3 and the first distance L1.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ratio of the product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 is greater than a product M3-L1 of the third mass M3 and the first distance L1, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wang to have the specific ratio set forth in the claim and to have the range desired by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang further teaches the reciprocating power tool is a reciprocating saw (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a reciprocating power tool, comprising:
a housing (housing of the tool); a power assembly comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0028);
a transmission assembly (assembly of 40 and 10, see Figure 1) connected to the power assembly;
a reciprocating assembly (30) connected to the transmission assembly and performing a reciprocating motion (see Figures 1-2); and
a balancing component (50) for balancing a motion of the reciprocating assembly; wherein a maximum distance a centroid of the reciprocating assembly moves is a first distance L1 (see Figures 1-2); a maximum distance a centroid of the balancing component moves is a second distance L2 (see Figures 1-2); a mass of the reciprocating assembly is a first mass M1, a total mass of the working accessory and the reciprocating assembly is a third mass M3 (see Figure 1); a mass of the balancing component is a second mass M2 (see Figure 1-2).
Wang fails to teach the product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 is greater than a product M3-L1 of the third mass M3 and the first distance L1.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ratio of the product M2·L2 of the second mass M2 and the second distance L2 is greater than a product M3-L1 of the third mass M3 and the first distance L1, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wang to have the specific ratio set forth in the claim and to have the range desired by the end user.
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang further teaches the balancing component moves along a direction substantially opposite to a motion direction of the reciprocating assembly to balance the reciprocating motion of the reciprocating assembly (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang further teaches the transmission assembly comprises a first transmission member (40), a transmission spindle (24), and an eccentric member (44), the transmission spindle extends along a spindle axis, the first transmission member is driven by the electric motor to rotate around the spindle axis, and the eccentric member rotates with the first transmission member to drive the reciprocating assembly to perform the reciprocating motion (See Figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Wang further teaches a centroid of the transmission assembly is a third centroid C3, and a distance between the third centroid C3 and the spindle axis is less than an unknown value.
Modified Wang fails to teach less than 2 mm or 1 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific value of less than 2 mm or 1 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wang to have the specific value set forth in the claim to have the desired stoke distance wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang further teaches the electric motor comprises a motor shaft rotatable around a first axis, and the first axis extends substantially along a front and rear direction of the reciprocating power tool (See Figures 1-2).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20200070265 A1) in view of Kato (US 20150042254 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, modified Wang further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth claim 1 and 14 above.
Modified Wang fails to teach a detection device and a controller, wherein the detection device is configured to detect an electrical signal of the electric motor, and, when determining that the reciprocating power tool is in a no-load state, the controller reduces an idle speed of the electric motor.
Kato teaches a cutting tool including a detection device (22) and a controller (20), wherein the detection device is configured to detect an electrical signal of the electric motor, and, when determining that the reciprocating power tool is in a no-load state, the controller reduces an idle speed of the electric motor (paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to added the detection and the controller arrangement, as taught by Kato, in order to the power output of the device (abstract of Kato).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Feldmann have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang (US 20200070265 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights