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
Applicant’s amendment, dated 7-24-2026, was received. Claims 1-4 were amended. Claims 5-19 were withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 20 are examined in this action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 20 are 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.
In re Claim 1, “a confluence opening is defined by a space positioned externally upstream of an inlet of the air duct,” 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. According the Applicant’s specification: ”Air flows from at least two of the air inlets converge into the confluence opening.” (see Applicant’s Specification, Pg. 3, ll. 16). Also, Applicant’s specification states: “a confluence opening, where airflows from at least two air inlets converge into the confluence opening.” See Applicant’s Specification, Pg. 8, ll. In other words, the confluence opening is downstream and not upstream. Further, it is the confluence opening is located within the housing, and is not external of the housing. As such, the confluence opening defined as a space position externally 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 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 1-4 and 20 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.
In re Claim 1, “a confluence opening is defined by a space positioned externally upstream of an inlet of the air duct,” is indefinite. Applicants specification states that ”Air flows from at least two of the air inlets converge into the confluence opening.” (see Applicant’s Specification, Pg. 3, ll. 16). Additionally, the figures illustrate that the air flow begins at the inlets #110 and flows into the confluence opening #111. It is unclear how the confluence opening can be upstream of the inlets #110. Additionally, the confluence opening is located within the housing (see Fig. 10, #111), and not external. As such, the scope of Claim 1 is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,369,672 to Bergquist in view of US 2010/0218386 to Ro Kamp.
In re Claim 1, Bergquist teaches a power tool apparatus (see Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a housing (see Figs. 1-4, #40), wherein the housing has a battery pack cavity (see Figs. 1-4, cavity in which battery #30 is located), wherein the battery pack cavity is configured to install a battery pack (see Figs. 1-4, battery #30);
a control board (see Figs. 2-4, a control unit (e.g., PCB) #150), wherein the control board is disposed within the housing (see Figs. 2-4, showing #150 in the housing #40;
a working part (see Fig. 1, #20), wherein the working part is disposed on the housing (see Fig. 1);
a motor (see Figs. 2-4, motor housing #100 houses a motor), wherein the motor is disposed within the housing (see Figs. 2-4), wherein the motor drives the working part to operate (see Col. 3, ll. 60-68, teaching the motor powers the working implement);
an air duct (see Figs. 2-4, air channel #140), wherein the air duct is disposed within the housing (see Figs. 2-4), wherein the air duct is configured for heat dissipation of the power tool apparatus (see Col. 6, ll. 7-40, which states “Thus, the heated air is not allowed to recirculate inside the casing 40. This arrangement provides an efficient removal of the heated air via a duct that is dedicated to removal of the heated air.” The air duct in Bergquist is configured for heat dissipation); and
a fan (see Col. 5, ll. 14-31, which states “The rotor may include fins or a fan attached thereto to further facilitate initiation of air flow.”), wherein the fan is fixedly connected to an output shaft of the motor (id), wherein the fan is configured to drive air to flow along the air duct when rotating (see Col. 5, ll. 14-31, which states “ In this regard, movement of the rotor of the motor (e.g., a DC motor in this example) may cause air to be drawn out of the void space 120 and into the inlet ports 110 of the motor housing 100 to cool the motor inside the motor housing 100.”; see also Col 6, ll. 18-22, which states “The air may be drawn from all portions of the void space 120 and consolidated in the motor housing 100 prior to being combined for exhaust through the air channel 140.”);
wherein the housing has at least two air inlets (see Col. 4, ll. 63-65, which states “However, it should be appreciated that in some embodiments, one or more formed air inlets may be included in the casing 40.” The examiner notes that plural inlets is at least two air inlets in housing #40; see also e.g., air inlet #170; see also Fig. 4, #120 and Col. 6, ll. 18-22, which states: “The air may be drawn from all portions of the void space 120 and consolidated in the motor housing 100 prior to being combined for exhaust through the air channel 140.”) and at least one first air outlet (see Figs. 2-4, exhaust port #192), wherein the air duct is disposed between the air inlets and the first air outlet (The path of #140 is between air inlet #170 and #120 and exhaust port #192)
wherein a confluence opening is defined by a space positioned externally upstream of an inlet of the air duct and situated between a first air guide plate and a second air guide plate (see annotated Fig. 4, below);
wherein the first air guide plate is disposed below a side of a first air inlet of the at least two air inlets located at an upper portion of the housing (see annotated Fig. 4, below – the examiner notes that the plate is below #120), and extends downward in a direction from the first air inlet to the confluence opening; and
wherein the second air guide plate extends downward from one end of the control board located below the inlet of the air duct to guide air in the housing to the confluence opening (see annotated Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Bergquist does not illustrate a chain saw, the text of Bergquist’s disclosure states that the invention can be used with a chain saw (see Bergquist, Col. 3, ll. 22-30, which states: it should be appreciated that the hedge trimmer 10 is merely one example of an electric powered, outdoor power device that may be configured in accordance with an example embodiment. Thus, for example, some embodiments may be practiced in connection with other outdoor power devices such as blowers, edgers, chainsaws, and/or the like).
Ro Kamp teaches that the in the outdoor cutting tool art, the working components of hedge trimmers and chain saws are interchangeable (see Ro Camp, Para. 0022 and Figs. 1-2). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to change the trimmer working component for a chain saw working component, as illustrated and taught by Ro Kamp. Doing so is the substation of one known working component for another known working component to achieve the result of providing a particular cutting tool (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 2, modified Bergquist, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein air flows from the at least two of the air inlets converge into the confluence opening (see annotated Fig. 4, below, showing multiple arrows, indicating air flow from both #170 and #120, of Bergquist, meeting at the confluence opening).
In re Claim 3, modified Bergquist, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the confluence opening is disposed in a region between the battery pack cavity and the control board (see annotated Fig. 4, above)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,369,672 to Bergquist in view of US 2010/0218386 to Ro Kamp, and further in view of JP 2008173716.
In re Claim 4, modified Bergquist, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein heat dissipation columns are disposed on top of the control board inside the air duct, wherein both the first air guide plate and the second air guide plate direct airflows towards the heat dissipation columns.
However, JP 2008173716 teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to provide a controller board with a heat sink (see JP 2008173716, Fig. 2, #4). The heat sink includes heat dissipation columns are disposed on the back side of the control board (see JP 2008173716, Fig. 2, #4, which includes structures #44, i.e. heat dissipation columns, with gaps, or ventilation holes #43 between the structures #44). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a heat sink to the PCB control board of Bergquist, as taught by JP 2008173716. Doing so prevents overheating due to the heat generation of electronic components (see JP 2008173716, abstract).
Adding heat sink columns to the control board of Bergquist would provide for wherein both the first air guide plate and the second air guide plate direct airflows towards the heat dissipation columns.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,369,672 to Bergquist in view of US 2010/0218386 to Ro Kamp, and further in view of WO 2019096223 A1
In re Claim 20, modified Bergquist, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein the ratio of the total cross-sectional area of the air inlets to the total cross-sectional area of the first air outlet is 0.8-2.0.
However, WO 2019096223 A1 teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to provide a ratio of the total cross-sectional area of the air inlets to the total cross-sectional area of the first air outlet is 0.8-2.0 (see WO 2019096223 A1, translation, which states “When designing the air inlet and outlet, the designer needs to consider the area relationship between the two, usually the air inlet area is larger than the air outlet. The larger the air inlet, the larger the ideal air intake, but if it is too large, the cooling air will lose its guidance, forming a flow around the air inlet, entering from the air inlet and then flowing out from the air inlet, or the cooling air cannot be smooth. The ground discharge causes the cooling efficiency to decrease. In the present embodiment, the ratio of the area of the air inlet to the area of the air outlet is greater than 1, and the preferred range is 1.2 to 1.4.).
In the same field of invention, electrical power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to provide a ratio between the air inlet to the air out let of 1.2-1.4, as taught by WO 2019096223 A1. Such a ratio balances the system to such that guidance will not be lost and the cooling is smooth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s specification amendments have obviated the prior specification objections.
Applicant’s claim amendments have amended the claims such that the generic placeholder is by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. As such, the claims were not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant argues that Bergquist only discloses a one air inlet #170. The Examiner disagrees. Bergquist teaches that air enters the housing through both #170 and #120 in Fig. 4 (see Bergquist Col 6, ll. 18-22, which states “The air may be drawn from all portions of the void space 120 and consolidated in the motor housing 100 prior to being combined for exhaust through the air channel 140.”
Additionally, Bergquist teaches that “ In embodiments where the air inlet 170, or multiple such inlets are employed, the air inlets may be of a relatively small size (e.g., smaller than 4 mm.sup.2). However, in other embodiments, the air inlet 170, or multiple such inlets may have a combined size of smaller than about 15 cm.sup.2.” (see Bergquist, Col. 5, ll. 8-13). It cannot be said that Bergquist does not teach multiple air inlets.
Applicant argues that “t can be seen from the arrows in Fig. 4 of Bergquist that the upper and lower airflows passing respectively through the upper and lower inlet ports actually converge into a motor housing, and not converge into a confluence opening of an air duct, as claimed in original claim 2.” The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, the air from #170 and #120 converge at the point illustrated in annotated Fig. 4, above.
Applicant argues that the confluence opening is not between the battery pack and the control board because the motor is between the two. The Examiner disagrees, and points out that the claims are open ended, as they use the transition phrase “comprising,” and can include additional structure. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the confluence opening is between the battery pack and the control board.
Applicant argues that Bergquist does not teach two plates, a first air guide plate and a second air guide plate. The examiner disagrees. As labeled above in annotated Fig. 4, Bergquist teaches two plates with an air duct between them. Applicant argues that the claims recite the separate components of an air duct #11, a first air guide plate #1111 and a second air guide plate #1112. The Examiner disagrees that three structural components are being claimed. An air duct is the absence of a structural component and is created in the gap between the guide plate #1111 and the guide plate #1112. In the same manner Bergquist teaches two plate swith a gap between them in which air passes.
Applicant argues that the combination of Bergquist and Sakamaki does not teach "wherein the second air guide plate extends in a direction away from the heat dissipation columns, wherein both the first air guide plate and the second air guide plate direct air flow towards the heat dissipation columns.” The examiner disagrees.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, adding a heat sink, as taught by Sakamaki, in the path of air flow of Bergquist would read on the claims.
Applicant argues that because part of the range of Claim 20 is below 1.0 and the reference (Zhao) discloses 1.2 to 1.4, that the prior art does not read on the claim. The Examiner disagrees. According to the MPEP, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (see MPEP 2131.03).
Applicant argues that a particular function (a negative pressure gradient and a localized venturi effected” occurs below the ration of 1.0. The Examiner notes, however, that the claim allows for a ratio higher than 1.0, which presumable does not provide a negative pressure gradient and a localized venturi effect. As such, the claim is broader than Applicant argues. As noted above, according to the MPEP, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (see MPEP 2131.03).
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights