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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/03/26.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 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 claim 2, the limitation of “a length of the effective holding area decreases as the angle between the first axis and the second axis increases” renders the scope of the claim unclear because the claim does not specify how the recited decrease in the length of the effective holding area is determined relative to the increase in the angle between the first axis and the second axis. In particular, it is unclear whether the recited relationship requires an adjustable angular configuration of the holding parts, represents a comparison between different configurations of he power tool, or defines a dimensional relationship within a single power tool having a fixed angular arrangement. Also, the claim does not clearly specify the direction in which the length of the effective holding area is measured.
In claim 20, the limitation of “a length of the effective holding area decreases as a distance between the motor shaft and the second fixed part increases in the front-back direction.” Renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear how the length of the effective holding area is determined and how such length decreases as the distance between the motor shaft and second fixed part increases? In particular, the claim does not specify whether the recited decrease represents a dimensional variation within the claimed power tool or a comparison between different configurations of the power tool.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (2021/0154880).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Osawa discloses a power tool, characterized by comprising: a housing (Fig. 1), extending in a front-back direction and comprising a first connection area (front portion) and a second connection area (rear portion at the vicinity of 13); a first holding part (40), located on a top side of the housing, wherein a front end of the first holding part (40; Fig. 1) is connected to the first connection area (Fig. 1), a rear end (42) of the first holding part (40) is connected to the second connection area (i.e. rear portion at the vicinity of 13), and the first holding part (40) extends along a first axis (not shown numerically); and a second holding part (50), located on a side surface of the housing, wherein the second holding part (50) comprises a first fixed part and a second fixed part both connected to the housing, the first fixed part and the second fixed part are connected to form a second axis (as shown in Fig. 1); and wherein when viewed from a left-right direction perpendicular to the front back direction, the first axis intersects with the second axis at an acute angle (as shown in Fig. 1); and wherein when viewed from the left-right direction, an intersection point of the first axis and the second axis is located in the first connection area (12). Osawa also discloses an angular arrangement of the holding parts, but does not specifically disclose wherein the angle between the first axis and the second axis is greater than or equal to 40° and less than or equal to 85° (claim 1), and wherein the angle between the first axis and the second axis is greater than or equal to 45° and less than or equal to 65° (claim 3). However, selecting a particular angular relationship between the first axis and the second axis between 40 to 85 degrees and between 45 to 65 degrees would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention. Adjusting the angle between the handles would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to accommodate ergonomic preferences, user comfort and/or operational preferences, while preserving the same overall operation and intended use of the tool disclosed in Osawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the handle of Osawa by selecting the claimed angle between the handles since such selection would be no more than a routine of optimization of a known design parameter and an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 5, although Osawa strongly suggest wherein a gravity center of the tool is located at the main body, Osawa does not specifically disclose wherein said center of gravity is located between the first fixed part and the second fixed part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the location of the center of gravity as claimed because the placement of the center of gravity is a matter of routine engineering design and optimization. The center of gravity of a device is inherently dependent upon the size, shape, mass, and arrangement of the constituent components. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that modifying component dimensions, materials, or placement would predictably alter the center of gravity to achieve desired balance, stability, maneuverability, handling characteristics, or user comfort.
The claimed center-of-gravity location is considered an obvious matter of design choice because it does not result in a different function or operation of the device from that disclosed in Osawa. MPEP $2144.04(VI) states that a claimed feature may be deemed an obvious matter of design choice where the claimed and prior-art structures perform the same function and the claimed feature does not produce an unexpected result.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized that selecting a particular configuration, arrangement, or location of a known feature is an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Osawa discloses wherein the second holding part (50) is configured as a curved structure between the first fixed part and the second fixed part (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (2021/0154880) in view of Yamaoka et al. (2023/0191646).
Regarding to claim 13, Osawa discloses a power tool including a housing, a motor disposed within the housing, but fails to disclose an airflow channel configured to direct cooling air through the housing comprising an air inlet and air outlet, a fan configured to generate airflow through the airflow channel, and a controller located upstream of the motor in the airflow channel and proximate an air inlet. Yamaoka discloses a power tool comprising a housing defining an air inlet (117; Fig. 1) and air outlet (116; Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the air inlet, an airflow channel (par. 40), having a cooling fan (not shown numerically; attached to motor shaft 181a; Fig. 5) that generates airflow through the airflow channel, a controller (191; Fig. 4) in the airflow path upstream of a motor (181; Fig. 5) and adjacent or proximate to the air inlet (117) such that incoming cooling air reaches the controller before passing over the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Osawa's power tool to include the air inlet and outlet, fan and controller arrangement taught by Yamaoka, including locating the controller upstream of the motor and near the inlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that electronic controllers generate heat during operation and that positioning the controller in a region exposed to relatively cool incoming air improves heat dissipation, reduces controller operating temperatures, enhances reliability, prolongs component life, and improves overall thermal management of the power tool. Additionally, placing the controller near the inlet and upstream of the motor allows the controller to be cooled by air at a lower temperature than air that has already absorbed heat from the motor. The combination would have yielded no more than the expected result of improved cooling efficiency for the controller and associated electronic components. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassen et al. (5,016,355) in view of Osawa et al. (2020/0306948).
Regarding claim 17, Gassen discloses a power tool, comprising a housing (Fig. 1), extending in a front-back direction and comprising a first connection area and a second connection area (i.e. forward and rear areas; Fig. 1); a motor (12), received in the housing; a first holding part (22), located on a top side of the housing, wherein a front end of the first holding part is connected to the first connection area, a rear end of the first holding part is connected to the second connection area, and the first holding part extends along a first axis (along 22); a second holding part (20), located on a side surface of the housing (Fig. 1), wherein the second holding part comprises a first fixed part and a second fixed part both connected to the housing; the first fixed part and the second fixed part are connected to form a second axis (along 20); and when viewed from a left-right direction, the first axis intersects with the second axis, and the motor (12) is at least partially located in an angle between the first axis and the second axis; but fails to disclose a battery pack installation part, configured to connected with a battery pack, wherein the battery pack installation part comprises a top end and a bottom end, and the bottom end of the battery pack installation part is disposed within the angle between the first axis and the second axis. Osawa discloses a power tool comprising first and second holding parts (15, 20), and a battery pack installation part (13; Figs. 1 and 3), configured to connected with a battery pack (90), wherein the battery pack installation part (13; Fig. 3) comprises a top end and a bottom end, and the bottom end of the battery pack installation part is disposed within an angle between the first holding part axis and the second holding part axis for the purposes of providing a removable electrical power source for operating the motor, thereby improving portability and permitting cordless operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Gassen’s power tool with a battery pack installation part and battery as taught by Osawa in order to improve portability and permitting cordless operation.
Regarding claim 18, Gassen teaches wherein an intersection point of the first axis and the second axis is located in the first connection area (at the top portion of 20).
Regarding claim 19, Gassen discloses a power tool, comprising: a housing (Fig. 1), extending in a front-back direction; a motor (12), comprising a motor shaft extending in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front back direction (inherently disclosed); a first holding part (22), located on a top side of the housing; and a second holding part (22), located on a side surface of the housing; wherein the second holding part comprises a first fixed part and a second fixed part both connected to the housing, and both the first fixed part and the second fixed part are located at a front side of the motor shaft in the front-back direction. If it can be argued that Gassen fails to disclose a motor shaft extending in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front back direction, then Osawa teaches a motor shaft (31) in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front back direction of the tools housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Gassen’s motor shaft with an orientation as taught by Osawa in order to provide a motor orientation suitable for transmitting rotational power to the tool’s drive mechanism to the transmission arrangement as necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 20 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.
Claims 6-11, 14-16 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/26 with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Osawa fails to disclose the claimed angular relation between the first and second axes. This is not found persuasive by the Examiner. The claimed angular orientation is a geometric parameter affecting the relative positioning of the operator’s hands. Adjusting this angular relationship to accommodate different gripping positions and operator preferences would have been a predictable modification of he known handle arrangement, provided that the modification preserves the intended gripping function s of the handles.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that selecting the specific angular relationship, as claimed, would have been an obvious variation of Osawa’s handle arrangement for the purpose of obtaining a desired relative gripping orientation.
Applicant further argues that the present application establish criticality of the present claimed angular range because the angle between the operator’s hand is neither too small to cause fatigue nor too large to limit the holding area. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The cited paragraphs describe the intended ergonomic advantages. However, Applicant has not identified comparative test results, quantitative measurements, or other evidence demonstrating that the claimed angular range produces an unexpected result relative to nearby angular configurations outside the claimed range. The mere disclosure of an ergonomic benefit does not, by itself, establish that the claimed angular ranges are critical or that the resulting configuration would have been nonobvious.
Thereby, for the reasons above, the grounds of rejection are deemed proper and maintained.
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 MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270 - 1926. 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
