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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed
on 09/28/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Applicant’s election with traverse Subgroup IA (claims 2-6) in a reply filed on
09/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the contention that the Examiner has not specifically stated why the function-button limitation of claims 2-6 and the operation-member limitations of claims 7-9 impose a serious search burden on the Examiner beyond the common search for the claimed cutting tool control/display system. However, the Examiner specifically stated on page 6 of the Restriction Requirement that the search for an individual invention or subgroup that includes at least one distinct feature not present in another subgroup or invention may overlap, but the searches do not coincide completely. In other words, each invention or subgroup that includes at least one distinct feature occupies a different area of the prior art and therefore requires a separate field of search. For example, the text search and field of search for uncovering the function-button limitation of claims 2-6 differ from the text search and field of search for uncovering the operation-member limitations set forth in claims 7-9. To the extent that each subgroup (IA-IB), in combination with the common cutting tool control/display system set forth in claim 1, is distinct and can be used separately without the distinct feature of the other subgroup, examination of all distinct subgroups within a single application would impose a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner. Such a burden could adversely affect the quality of examination in view of the time constraints imposed for examination of each application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-9 and 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an intersection of the grip 12 and the electric motor housing 11 as set forth in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It appears that claim 11 is directed to a different embodiment shown in Fig. 14 than claim 12 which requires the display mechanism 4 to be connected to the battery housing shown in Figs. 16-17. However, Fig. 14 does not display any particular intersection for the motor housing and the grip.
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 Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 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.
6. 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.
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:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a display mechanism,” “a control unit,” and “a display unit” as recited in claim 1;
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
7. 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.
8. Claims 10-13 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.
Regarding claim 10, the structural relationship between the “cutting tool housing” and the “electric motor housing” is unclear. Claim 10 recites that “the cutting tool housing is further formed with an electric motor housing connected to the grip,” but does not clearly indicate whether the electric motor housing constitutes a portion of the cutting tool housing, is integrally formed with the cutting tool housing, or is a separate housing structure connected to the cutting tool housing. The phrase “formed with” does not clearly establish the intended structural relationship between the two housing structures. Accordingly, the scope of claim 10 is unclear as to what structure constitutes the cutting tool housing and what structure constitutes the electric motor housing.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “an intersection of the grip and the electric motor housing” does not clearly identify the location at which the display assembly is disposed. It is unclear what structure or region is intended to constitute the “intersection” of the grip and the electric motor housing, including whether the term refers to a junction, boundary, overlapping region, or another portion of the cutting tool. Consequently, the claim does not clearly define the spatial relationship between the display assembly, the grip, and the electric motor housing, and the scope of the limitation “at an intersection of the grip and the electric motor housing” cannot be reasonably ascertained from the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the relationship between the “battery pack coupling portion” recited in claim 1 and the “battery housing” newly recited in claim 12 is unclear. Claim 1 recites “a battery pack coupling portion connected to a battery pack,” whereas claim 12 recites that “the cutting tool housing further comprises a battery housing connected to the battery pack.” However, the claim does not clearly define the structural relationship between the battery pack coupling portion and the battery housing, or identify how these two structures are distinguished from one another. In particular, it is unclear whether the battery pack coupling portion forms part of the battery housing, whether the battery housing includes the battery pack coupling portion, or whether the battery housing and the battery pack coupling portion are separate and distinct structures. The claim therefore does not provide sufficient clarity as to what structure constitutes the “battery housing” and what structure constitutes the “battery pack coupling portion.”
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “one indicator capable of displaying different colors or words” does not clearly define the relationship between the different colors or words and the rotation direction of the electric motor. Claim 1 requires the display assembly to display the rotation direction of the electric motor, while claim 13 further recites that the display assembly comprises “one indicator capable of displaying different colors or words.” It is unclear whether the different colors or words are required to correspond to different rotation directions, whether the colors or words represent some other operating condition, or whether any particular correspondence between the displayed colors or words and the rotation direction is required. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed indicator and its relationship to the required display of the rotation direction is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.64
10. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (2021/0213593 A1), hereinafter Ichikawa, in view of Araki et al. (2021/0078146 A1), hereinafter Araki. Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a cutting tool 2, comprising: an electric motor 60 capable of driving a working accessory, such as a circular saw (paragraph [0060]), to rotate; a cutting tool housing 10 formed with a grip 103 for a user to hold; a battery pack coupling portion 20a (Fig. 1) connected to a battery pack 70 for powering the cutting tool; a control circuit 30, including CPU 31 and memory 32, electrically connected to the electric motor 60 and configured to control the motor-driving circuitry such that the motor 60 is controlled in accordance with a selected rotational direction; and a display mechanism 24 comprising an LED board 241 and display LEDs 24a electrically connected to the control circuit 30, wherein the control circuit 30 performs a display process through the display panel 24. Ichikawa further teaches that the display LEDs 24a display, among other information, the rotational direction of the motor 60 (paragraph [0104]). Thus, Ichikawa teaches displaying the rotational direction of the electric motor through the display mechanism 24 in response to electrical signals provided by the control circuit 30. See Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0104] and [0137] of Ichikawa.
To the extent Ichikawa does not expressly disclose that control circuit 30 is implemented as a control board, Araki teaches this feature (paragraph [0082]) expressly discloses controller 17 comprising one or more circuit boards on which a plurality of electronic components is mounted, including a processor, nonvolatile memory, volatile memory, transistors, capacitors, and resistors. Araki further discloses that controller 17 outputs control instructions that control motor 6. Therefore, Araki teaches that the electronic control functionality used to control an electric motor may be implemented using a circuit-board-based controller having a processor and associated electronic components (paragraph [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Ichikawa’s control circuit 30 using the circuit-board configuration taught by Araki because such a modification would constitute the use of a known circuit-board implementation for performing the same electronic motor-control functions already performed by Ichikawa’s control circuit 30. The modification would have predictably maintained Ichikawa’s existing motor-control and display functionality, including control of motor 60 and display of the rotation direction through display LEDs 24a, while providing the control circuitry in the known circuit-board form expressly taught by Araki.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches that the cutting tool housing 10 comprises an electric motor housing 102 connected to the grip 103, with the electric motor 60 disposed in the electric motor housing 102. See Fig. 1 of Ichikawa.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches that the cutting tool housing 10 comprises a battery housing associated with the battery pack coupling portion 20a and connected to the battery pack 70 for powering the cutting tool. Ichikawa further teaches that the display mechanism 24 is provided on the cutting tool housing adjacent to the battery pack coupling portion 20a. See Fig. 1 of Ichikawa. Thus, the display mechanism 24 is connected to the portion of the housing that accommodates and supports the battery pack.
Regarding claim 15, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, except that Ichikawa does not expressly disclose that a length of the cutting tool in a front and rear direction is less than or equal to 400 mm and a width of the cutting tool in a left and right direction is less than or equal to 180 mm.
However, Official Notice is taken that cutting tools having dimensions within the claimed ranges were old and well known in the art at the time of the invention. Such dimensional limitations concern the overall size of the cutting tool and do not require any particular structural modification to the motor, control circuitry, display mechanism, or other components taught by Ichikawa. Selecting dimensions within a known and conventional range for a handheld cutting tool would have been a matter of routine optimization based on factors such as portability, handling, and the intended application of the tool. Accordingly, the claimed dimensional limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Araki and in further view of Rudolf et al. (WO 2017102518 A1), hereinafter Rudolf. Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, except that Ichikawa does not expressly disclose that the display mechanism further comprises a separately identified first function button electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the first function button is capable of energizing the control unit to cause the display assembly to display the rotational direction of the electric motor.
Rudolf discloses a handheld power tool 100 having a drive unit 220 for rotationally driving an output spindle 310, wherein the drive unit is switchable between first and second rotational directions. Rudolf further discloses an operating element 106 for initiating a switching operation between the first and second rotational directions. The operating element 106 is associated with a sensor unit 1370 that generates an actuation signal upon actuation of the operating element, and the actuation signal is provided to an electronic control unit 150, which controls the switching operation. Rudolf additionally discloses an operating unit 1120 having a direction-control element 1180 and displays 1185, 1186 for displaying the respective direction of rotation. Rudolf teaches that the operating element, direction-control element, and display components are electrically associated with the control electronics such that user actuation of the operating element produces an electrical signal that is processed by the control unit and results in control and/or indication of the rotational direction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ichikawa, as modified by Araki, to include Rudolf’s user-operable direction-control arrangement. Both Ichikawa and Rudolf are directed to handheld power tools having electronically controlled rotational direction and an indication of the rotational direction. Rudolf provides an expressly taught user interface in which actuation of an operating element produces an electrical signal to electronic control circuitry, while the selected/current rotational direction is displayed. Applying this known arrangement to Ichikawa would have provided a predictable and convenient user interface for initiating and indicating the rotational direction of motor 60. The modification would have required only the addition of a known user-operated electrical control element and corresponding control functionality to Ichikawa’s existing motor-control and display system.
Regarding claim 3, Ichikawa, as modified by Araki and Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the rotation direction of the electric motor is further capable of being switched through the first function button. Rudolf expressly discloses an operating element 106 for initiating a switching operation for switching drive unit 220 between a first rotational direction and a second rotational direction. Rudolf further discloses that actuation of operating element 106 is detected by sensor unit 1370, which generates an actuation signal that is supplied to electronic control unit 150, and electronic control unit 150 effects the switching operation. Rudolf further discloses an operating unit 1120 having a direction-control element 1180 for switching the drive unit 220 between a first and second rotational direction. The control element 1180 is preferably designed as a monostable switching element, and the circuit board 1030 includes at least one switching element 1235 associated with control element 1180, with switching element 1235 preferably being a monostable switch, such as a pushbutton. Rudolf further discloses that the operating unit may alternatively or additionally be configured as a display having a touch-sensitive screen, wherein an icon provided on the display may be actuated by a user. Rudolf therefore contemplates that the user-operated direction-control functionality may be implemented through an actable displayed control element rather than solely through a separate mechanical pushbutton. In such an arrangement, the displayed direction-control icon provides a user input to the control electronics and causes the selected rotational direction to be changed. Accordingly, Rudolf teaches both a physical actuable control element for switching the rotational direction and a touchscreen implementation in which a displayed icon may itself be actuated to select or change the rotational direction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Ichikawa’s direction-control functionality, as modified by Araki, using Rudolf’s user-actuable direction-control arrangement, including a touch-sensitive display having an actuable direction-control icon. Such a modification would have provided a predictable user interface in which the user could actuate the displayed direction-control element to selectively switch the rotational direction while simultaneously receiving a visual indication of the selected direction.
Regarding claim 4, Ichikawa, as modified by Araki and Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the first function button comprises a first button and a second button, at least one of the first button and the second button is capable of energizing the control unit, and the first button and the second button are capable of correspondingly switching the rotation direction of the electric motor to forward rotation and reverse rotation, respectively. Rudolf discloses direction-control elements associated with switching the drive unit between first and second rotational directions. In particular, Rudolf discloses operating elements 1085 and 1086 corresponding respectively to clockwise rotation and counterclockwise rotation. Rudolf further discloses an operating element 1180 for switching the drive unit between a first and second rotational direction, with a switching element 1235 associated with the control element 1180 and preferably configured as a monostable switch or pushbutton. Rudolf further teaches that the operating unit may alternatively or additionally be implemented as a touch-sensitive display, wherein an icon corresponding to a user-selectable function may be actuated. Thus, Rudolf teaches that the user-operable direction-selection functions may be implemented as separately actuable controls, including actuable displayed icons on a touchscreen. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the first and second rotational-direction controls of Rudolf as first and second user-actuable controls or displayed icons corresponding respectively to the first and second rotational directions. For example, a first displayed direction icon could be actuated to select clockwise/forward rotation and a second displayed direction icon could be actuated to select counterclockwise/reverse rotation. Upon actuation, the corresponding user input would be provided to the electronic control unit, which would cause the motor to operate in the selected direction. Such an arrangement would merely provide two known user-interface inputs for selecting two known motor rotational states and would have predictably maintained the motor-control functionality of Ichikawa. The claimed requirement that at least one of the first and second buttons is capable of energizing the control unit is likewise taught by Rudolf’s disclosure that actuation of a user-operable control produces an electrical signal that is supplied to the electronic control unit. In the touchscreen implementation, actuation of the displayed icon provides the corresponding user input to the electronic control system. Thus, the first and second user-actuable controls would serve as electrical inputs to the control electronics and would correspondingly command the first and second rotational directions.
Regarding claim 5, Ichikawa, as modified by Araki and Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the first function button and the display assembly are integrated with each other. Rudolf discloses an operating unit 1120 including a direction-control element 1180 and displays 1185, 1186 for displaying the selected direction of rotation. Rudolf further teaches that control element 1180 and the displays 1185, 1186 are arranged on the same circuit board 1030. In particular, circuit board 1030 includes switching element 1235 associated with control element 1180 and illumination means 1231, 1233 associated with displays 1185, 1186. Thus, Rudolf expressly teaches that the direction-control function and direction-display function are physically integrated in the same operating unit and supported by the same circuit board. Moreover, Rudolf expressly contemplates an alternative touchscreen implementation in which the display itself includes an actuable icon. In such an implementation, the function button/control and the display indication are integrated into the same display interface, with the user actuating the displayed icon to initiate the desired switching operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Ichikawa’s display mechanism and rotational-direction control using Rudolf’s integrated control/display arrangement. Such a modification would have combined the known functions of user actuation and rotational-direction indication in a common operating interface, thereby providing a compact and readily accessible user interface for selecting and displaying the rotational direction. The modification would have been a predictable use of a known touchscreen control technique for performing the same motor-direction selection and indication functions already contemplated by Ichikawa and Rudolf. Accordingly, Rudolf teaches an arrangement in which the function button/control and display assembly are integrated with one another, including an embodiment in which the display itself provides an actuable control element.
Regarding claim 6, Ichikawa, as modified by Araki and Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the display mechanism further comprises a second function button electrically connected to the control unit, and the rotation direction of the electric motor is capable of being switched through the second function button. Rudolf discloses multiple user-operable controls for controlling the rotational direction of drive unit 220. In particular, Rudolf discloses operating elements 1085 and 1086 corresponding respectively to clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, as well as control element 1180 for switching between first and second rotational directions. These controls are associated with switching elements and control electronics such that actuation of the respective control generates an electrical signal used by the electronic control unit to effect the desired switching operation. Rudolf further discloses that the operating unit may alternatively or additionally be implemented as a touch-sensitive display, wherein an icon displayed on the screen may be actuated by a user. Thus, the second direction-control function may likewise be implemented as a second actuable displayed icon. For example, a first displayed icon may be actuated to select a first rotational direction and a second displayed icon may be actuated to select a second rotational direction. Each actuated icon provides a corresponding electrical input to the control electronics, thereby allowing the rotational direction of the drive unit to be switched. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ichikawa’s display mechanism with a second user-actuable direction-control element, including a second actuable touchscreen icon, in addition to the first direction-control element. Such an arrangement would have allowed the user to select either of the two rotational directions directly through the display interface while maintaining the associated visual indication of the selected direction. The use of a second user-actuable control would have been a predictable implementation of Rudolf’s disclosed multiple direction-control arrangement and touchscreen user interface. Accordingly, Rudolf teaches a plurality of electrically actuable direction-control elements, including an embodiment in which the controls may be implemented as actuable icons on a touch-sensitive display, each capable of providing a control input for switching the rotational direction of the drive unit. When applied to Ichikawa’s display and motor-control arrangement, the first and second actuable controls would correspondingly provide the claimed first and second function buttons.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Ichikawa, as modified by Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the display assembly comprises one indicator (1085, 1086 or 1180, 1185, 1186; Figs. 12-13 in Rudolf) capable of displaying different colors or words.
Regarding claim 14, Ichikawa, as modified by Rudolf, teaches everything noted above including that the display assembly comprises two indicators (1085, 1086 or 1180, 1185, 1186; Figs. 12-13 in Rudolf), and each of the two indicators is capable of indicating one rotation direction of the electric motor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ichikawa in view of Araki and in further view of Schwab et al. (CN 214443508 U), hereinafter Schwab. Regarding claim 11, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, including a display mechanism for displaying the rotational direction of the electric motor. Ichikawa does not expressly disclose that the display assembly is at least partially disposed at an intersection of the grip and the electric motor housing. Schwab, however, teaches a cutting tool having a display window 172 (Fig. 1) positioned at least partially at an intersection of a grip 26 and an electric motor housing 18. Thus, Schwab demonstrates that positioning a display at or adjacent to the intersection between the grip and motor housing was a known arrangement in a cutting tool. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position Ichikawa’s display assembly at least partially at the intersection of grip 103 and electric motor housing 102, as taught by Schwab. Such a positioning would place the display in a location readily visible to a user holding the grip and would provide convenient access to the displayed rotational-direction information during operation of the cutting tool. Further, the modification merely changes the known location of an existing display without changing the manner in which the display operates or the function it performs. Accordingly, the proposed modification represents a predictable rearrangement of known components to obtain the known benefit of providing the user with a conveniently positioned display. Such a modification would have been within the ordinary skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Wuensch et al. (7,682,035 B2), Blatz et al. (2019/0252133 A1), and Ota et al. (2016/0149520 A1) teach a cutting tool.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
October 6, 2026
