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 application filed on 06/27/25.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/25 are 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 claims 2 and 20, the limitations of “an effective holding area”, “the length of the effective holding area decreases as the angle between the firs axis and the second axis increases”, and “the length of the effective holding area decreases as a distance between the motor shaft and the second fixed part increases) render that claim indefinite in that it is unclear how the area and the lengths are determined and what portions of the second holding part are included within said claimed area and lengths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osawa et al. (2021/0154880).
Regarding claims 17-18, Osawa discloses a power tool, comprising: a housing (2; Fig. 2), extending in a front-back direction and comprising a first connection area (12) and a second connection area (at the vicinity of 13); a motor (5), receiving in the housing; a first holding part (15), located on a top side of the housing, wherein a front end of the first holding part (15) is connected to the first connection area (12), a rear end of the first holding part (15) is connected to the second connection area (13), and the first holding part (15) extends along a first axis; and a second holding part (11F), located on a side surface of the housing, wherein the second holding part (11F) comprises a first fixed part (18) and a second fixed part (19) both connected to the housing; the first fixed part (18) and the second fixed part (19) are connected to form a second axis; and when viewed from a left-right direction, the first axis intersects with the second axis, and the motor (5) is at least partially located in an angle between the first axis and the second axis (i.e. angle formed in front of the intersection; Fig. 2); and, wherein an intersection point of the first axis and the second axis is located in the first connection area (12; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao (WO 2022/242726 A1).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 19, Zhao discloses a power tool, comprising: a housing (Fig. 1), extending in a front-back direction; a motor (47; Fig. 9), comprising a motor shaft extending in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-back direction; a first holding part (21) , 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 (Fig. 1), and the second fixed part (i.e. upper fixed part) is located at a front side of the motor shaft in the front-back direction.
Regarding claim 20, Zhao discloses wherein the second holding part (22) comprises an effective holding area (Fig. 1), and a length of the effective holding area decreases as a distance between the motor shaft (47) and the second fixed part (i.e. upper fixed part of 22) increases in the front-back direction (Figs. 10-11).
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, 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 (2; Fig. 1), extending in a front-back direction and comprising a first connection area (front portion 2) and a second connection area (at the vicinity of 13); a first holding part (15), located on a top side of the housing, wherein a front end (10) of the first holding part (15; Fig. 1) is connected to the first connection area (Fig. 1), a rear end (14) of the first holding part (10) is connected to the second connection area (i.e. rear portion at the vicinity of 13), and the first holding part (15) extends along a first axis (not shown numerically); and a second holding part (11F), located on a side surface of the housing, wherein the second holding part (11F) comprises a first fixed part (18) and a second fixed part (19) both connected to the housing, the first fixed part (18) and the second fixed part (19) are connected to form a second axis (as best shown in Fig. 2); 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), 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 2, Osawa discloses wherein the second holding part (11F) comprises: a first section (18), extending from the first fixed part ; a second section (19), extending from the second fixed part; and a third section (20), connected to the first section and the second section; wherein the second holding part (11F) comprises an effective holding area (i.e. grip area between 18 and 20) located on at least one of the first section (18) and the third section (20).
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 (i.e. between 18, 19). 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).
Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed center-of-gravity location is critical to the operation of the device or that it achieves any unexpected result relative to the device disclosed by Osawa. Rather, the claimed location merely represents one of a finite number of predictable design choices available to an artisan seeking to balance the device or tailor its handling characteristics. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Osawa such that its center of gravity is located at the claimed position, and claim 5 is therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Regarding claim 12, Osawa discloses wherein the second holding part (11F) is configured as a curved structure between the first fixed part (18) and the second fixed part (18, 19; Figs. 1 and 3).
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed combination including the following features:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a power tool, as claimed, in which the second fixed part is at least partially located within a contour area defined by the outer contours of both the motor and the gearbox of a functional assembly when viewed from the left-right direction. The specific overlap relationship between the second fixed part and the contour area of the functional assembly is not shown or suggested by the cited references and is considered critical to the patentability of the allowed claims.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a housing defining a first chamber accommodating the motor and defining an air outlet, and a second chamber accommodating the controller and defining an air inlet, wherein the first chamber is in fluid communication with the second chamber. The specific chamber arrangement and airflow relationship between the controller chamber and motor chamber are not shown or suggested by the cited references and are considered critical to the patentability of the allowed claims.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the power tool comprises a gear assembly comprising an output shaft, and the second holding part is between the output shaft and the motor shaft in the front-back direction.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights