DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed 28 January 2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-11, and 13-14 are amended.
Claim 15 is new.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted in the amendment filed 28 January 2026.
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 7, 11, and 12 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 7 is ambiguous as it is not clear whether “a front-rear direction” is the same direction as “a front-rear direction” set forth in claim 1, on which claim 7 depends. It is recommended that this phrase be amended to recite --the front-rear direction--.
Claim 11 is ambiguous as the phrase “the drive part and the housing are connected directly or via member having a larger rigidity than the elastic body” appears to be redundant with respect to the phrase “the drive part and the housing are connected directly or via a structure having a rigidity higher than a rigidity of the elastic body” of claim 2, on which claim 11 depends.
Claim 12 is ambiguous as the phrase “the elastic body is interposed between the rear extending portion and the housing” is confusing when taken in conjunction with the phrase “the drive part case is located on a front side of the motor case” of amended claim 1, on which claim 12 depends. It is unclear in what manner the elastic body is interposed between the rear extending portion of the motor and the housing, while the elastic body connects the drive part case (on the front side of the motor case) and the housing.
Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geis et al. (DE 4000861) in view of Johnson et al. (WO 2013/002776).
With respect to claim 2, Geis et al. disclose a work machine comprising: a housing extending along a front-rear direction of the work machine (envelope housing 12, fig. 1), the housing including a grip part to be held by a user (handle 12’), the grip part being located on a rear side of the housing (handle 12’ is on the rear side of the housing 12, fig. 1); a drive unit including a motor (drive motor 10, fig. 2); a motor case accommodating at least a part of the motor (motor housing 11 encloses the motor 10, fig. 1); and a drive part including a power transmission mechanism configured to transfer power from the motor (gear box 29 including gears, fig. 1), the drive part being arranged on a front side of the motor along the front-rear direction of the work machine and connected to the motor (gear box 29 is positioned in front of the motor 10 and connected to the motor, fig. 1); wherein the drive unit is supported by the housing to be movable relative to the housing (motor 10 of the drive unit is movable relative to the housing 12 via the elastic members 13, gears of gear box 29 are rotatable relative to the housing 12, fig. 1), wherein the motor case and the housing are connected only via an elastic body (motor case 11 is connected to housing 12 only via elastic bodies 14, elastic sleeve 23, figs. 1, 2, pgs. 2-3); and wherein the drive part and the housing are connected directly or via a structure having a rigidity higher than a rigidity of the elastic body (gear box 29 is directly connected to housing 12, fig. 1). Geis et al. disclose that the gear box 29 and the housing 12 are connected and that at the transition point “an elastic intermediate layer can be provided” (pg. 3). Since an elastic intermediate layer can be provided, then an elastic intermediate layer may not be provided also. Accordingly, Geis et al. is considered to disclose that the gear box 29 and the housing 12 are directed connected by a structure having a rigidity higher than a rigidity of the elastic body.
Geis et al. disclose a drive part (gear case 29 and clamping collar 28, fig. 1) including a power transmission mechanism that transfers power from motor (gears in the gear case 29), but fails to specifically disclose an output shaft, and the drive part supporting the output shaft and the power transmission driving the output shaft.
Johnson et al. disclose a work machine (power tool 10) including a drive unit including a motor 14 having an outer wall (fig. 2), the outer wall mounted in the housing 12 via elastic members 130 only (fig. 2), an output shaft 18, and a drive part including a power transmission mechanism that transfers power from the motor to the output shaft (gearcase 16 enclosing drive train 20, figs. 11, 12), and the gearcase 16 is rigidly connected to the housing 12 (screws, fig. 12).
It 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 to modify the Geis et al. device to include an output shaft, and the drive part supporting the output shaft and the power transmission driving the output shaft, as taught by Johnson et al., as the selection of an art-recognized element suitable for the intended purpose of providing drive to the tool bit held by the clamping collar.
With respect to claim 11, Geis et al. disclose the drive part and the housing are connected directly or via a member having a larger rigidity than the elastic body (gear box 29 is directly connected to housing 12, fig. 1), and the elastic body is interposed between the motor case and the housing (elastic bodies 14, elastic sleeve 23, are interposed between the motor case 11 and the housing 12, figs. 1, 2, pgs. 2-3). Geis et al. disclose that the gear box 29 and the housing 12 are connected and that at the transition point “an elastic intermediate layer can be provided” (pg. 3). Since an elastic intermediate layer can be provided, then an elastic intermediate layer may not be provided also. Accordingly, Geis et al. is considered to disclose that the gear box 29 and the housing 12 are directed connected by a structure having a rigidity higher than a rigidity of the elastic body.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 22, and 23-14 under 35 USC 112(b), the claim amendments and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated the new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112(b), above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, and 12-14 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Takeda (WO 2014/132745) and the rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 USC 103 over Takeda in view of Aoki (US Patent Publ. No. 2018/0283508), applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 13-15 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of claim 1 is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of structural limitations and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 1 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“a drive unit, at least a part of which is covered by the housing, the drive unit including;
a motor;
a motor case accommodating at least a part of the motor;
a drive part supporting the output shaft and including a power transmission mechanism configured to drive the output shaft by transferring power from the motor to the output shaft; and
a drive part case accommodating at least a part of the drive part,
wherein the drive part case is located on a front side of the motor case, and the drive part case is fixed to the motor case,
wherein the drive unit is connected to the housing only via the drive part case by connecting the drive part case and the housing together via an elastic body,
wherein the motor case and the housing are not connected directly or via any elastic body”.
Takeda (WO 2014/132745) is considered to be the closest prior art. Takeda discloses a work machine comprising a drive unit including a motor and a drive part, an output shaft, a housing, and the drive unit is connected to the housing via an elastic body. Takeda discloses that the rear portion of the motor is connected to the housing via a bearing, an elastic body, and (unnumbered) elements connected to the housing of the work machine.
Pardo et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2015/0305487) disclose a work machine comprising a drive unit comprising a vibratory motor and a platform and bearing surface, and a damper resiliently connecting the platform and bearing surface with the housing, wherein the drive unit is connected to the housing only via the platform and bearing surface. .
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Takeda, or a combination of Takeda and Pardo et al., is that Takeda, or a combination of Takeda and Pardo et al., do not disclose or teach “a drive unit, at least a part of which is covered by the housing, the drive unit including; a motor; a motor case accommodating at least a part of the motor; a drive part supporting the output shaft and including a power transmission mechanism configured to drive the output shaft by transferring power from the motor to the output shaft; and a drive part case accommodating at least a part of the drive part, wherein the drive part case is located on a front side of the motor case, and the drive part case is fixed to the motor case, wherein the drive unit is connected to the housing only via the drive part case by connecting the drive part case and the housing together via an elastic body, wherein the motor case and the housing are not connected directly or via any elastic body”.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Takeda, or a combination of Takeda and Pardo et al., would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since such modifications to the Takeda structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any modification to the Takeda structure to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, and would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding independent claim 13: the subject matter of claim 13 is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of structural limitations and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 13 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“an output shaft supported by the drive part and extending in an up-down direction of the work machine, the drive part including a drive part case and a power transmission mechanism accommodated in the drive part case, the power transmission mechanism being configured to drive the output shaft by transferring power from the motor to the output shaft;
a housing accommodating the motor, the housing including a cover arranged at a front end of the housing in the front-rear direction of the work machine, the cover covering at least a part of a front surface of the drive part case, the at least the part of the front surface of the drive part case being positioned on a front side of the output shaft in the front-rear direction of the work machine; and
an elastic body located between the front surface of the drive part case and an inner surface of the cover facing the front surface of the drive part case,
wherein the front surface of the drive part case and the inner surface of the cover are connected via the elastic body in the front-rear direction of the work machine”.
Takeda (WO 2014/132745) is considered to be the closest prior art. Takeda discloses a work machine comprising a drive unit including a motor and a drive part, an output shaft, a housing, and the drive unit is connected to the housing via an elastic body. Takeda discloses a drive part case (gear cover 20, inner cover 30) having a front surface (fig. 4), and an elastic body 71 located between the front surface and an inner surface of the cover (convex locking portion 41 of housing 40) facing the front surface. Takeda fails to disclose or teach the front surface of the drive part case positioned on a front side of the output shaft in the front-rear direction of the work machine.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Takeda is that Takeda does not disclose or teach “an output shaft supported by the drive part and extending in an up-down direction of the work machine, the drive part including a drive part case and a power transmission mechanism accommodated in the drive part case, the power transmission mechanism being configured to drive the output shaft by transferring power from the motor to the output shaft; a housing accommodating the motor, the housing including a cover arranged at a front end of the housing in the front-rear direction of the work machine, the cover covering at least a part of a front surface of the drive part case, the at least the part of the front surface of the drive part case being positioned on a front side of the output shaft in the front-rear direction of the work machine; and an elastic body located between the front surface of the drive part case and an inner surface of the cover facing the front surface of the drive part case, wherein the front surface of the drive part case and the inner surface of the cover are connected via the elastic body in the front-rear direction of the work machine”.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Takeda would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since such modifications to the Takeda structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any modification to the Takeda structure to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, and would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 3-6, 8-10, and 14-15 depend from claims 1 and 13, and are likewise allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights