DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 06/23/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled;
Claims 21-40 are new;
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 and 10/23/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Application on 04/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Control element (6): Trigger
Actuating element (6): Trigger
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)(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.
Claims 21-25, 29-31 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 20210237249; Fischer).
Regarding Claim 21 Fischer discloses a work apparatus, comprising:
a housing (14);
a motor support unit (74) configured as a separate component from the housing (14), the housing (14) being fixed to the motor support unit (74); (par 33)
a drive motor (42) arranged in the housing (14),the drive motor (42) being an electric motor for driving a tool (par 40), and attached to the motor support unit (74); and
a receptacle housing (38, 38”) configured as a separate component from the motor support unit (74) for receiving at least one battery pack (34) for supplying the drive motor (42) with electrical power,
wherein the receptacle housing (38, 38”) is fixed to the housing (14), and
wherein the receptacle housing (38, 38”) and the motor support unit (74) are configured and arranged relative to each other in such a way that the receptacle housing (38, 38”) is able to move relative to the motor support unit (74) in order to reduce or prevent direct transmission of inertial forces emanating from the receptacle housing (38, 38”) to the motor support unit (74) in an event of an impact load on the work apparatus (10, 10”). (par 43)
Regarding Claim 22 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the motor support unit (74) and the receptacle housing (38, 38”) are connected to one another only via the housing (14).
Regarding Claim 23 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the motor support unit (74) and the receptacle housing (38, 38”) are arranged spaced apart from each other.
Regarding Claim 24 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses each connection between the housing (14) and the motor support unit (74) and each connection between the housing (14) and the receptacle housing (38, 38”) is free of a separately formed antivibration element.
Regarding Claim 25 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the receptacle housing (14) has at least two receptacles (38, 38”) for receiving two battery packs (34), and wherein an opening (Fig. 2) through which the motor support unit (74) projects is provided between the two receptacles (38, 38”).
Regarding Claim 29 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the work apparatus (10) has a rear handle (26) and a front handle (50),wherein a control element (Annotated Fig. 2) for controlling the drive motor (42) is coupled to the rear handle (26),wherein the motor support unit (74) has a rear end (Annotated Fig. 2) and a front end (Annotated Fig. 2),wherein the rear end (Annotated Fig. 2) faces away from the tool (par 40) and the front end (Annotated Fig. 2) faces towards the tool (par 40), and wherein the rear handle (26) is attached in a rear region of the motor support unit (74) and the front handle (50) is attached in a front region of the motor support unit (74).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 30 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the rear handle (26) is attached at the rear end (Annotated Fig. 2) and wherein the front handle (50) is attached at the front end (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 31 Fischer discloses work apparatus, comprising:
a housing (14);
a motor support unit (74) configured as a separate component from the housing (14), and connected to the housing (14);
a drive motor (42) arranged in the housing (14), the drive motor (42) being an electric motor, and attached to the motor support unit (74); and
a receptacle housing (38, 38”) having a first receptacle (38) and a second receptacle (38”) for receiving one battery pack (34) each,
wherein the motor support unit (74) is arranged at least partially between the first receptacle (38) and the second receptacle (38”). (Fig. 17) (par 49-51)
Regarding Claim 39 Fischer discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses the work apparatus (10”) has a rear handle (26) and a front handle (50),wherein the rear handle (26) is coupled to an actuating element (Annotated Fig. 2) for controlling the drive motor (42),wherein the motor support unit has a rear end (Annotated Fig. 2) and a front end (Annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the rear end (Annotated Fig. 2) faces away from a tool (par 40) and the front end (Annotated Fig. 2) faces towards the tool (par 40), and wherein the rear handle (26) is attached in a rear region of the motor support unit (74) and the front handle (50) is attached in a front region of the motor support unit (74).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 20210237249)
Regarding Claim 27 Fischer discloses the claimed invention except for the housing is formed from plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the housing from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 20210237249) in view of Takeuchi (US 20250112519)
Regarding Claim 40 Fischer discloses the claimed invention except for the work apparatus is a cut-off machine or a chainsaw.
Takeuchi teaches a motor unit (10) that includes a housing (84), motor support unit (100), a motor (86) and a receptacle housing (24). Takeuchi further teaches a motor unit can be attached to multiple types of work apparatuses including a cut off machine (4e) where Takeuchi teaches a motor unit can be applied to a variety of work apparatus for the purposes of improving the versatility of the apparatus.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power tool of Fischer to include a cut off machine as taught by Takeuchi since Takeuchi teaches that such a modification provides a motor unit that can be applied to a variety of work apparatus for the purposes of improving the versatility of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26, 28, and 32-38 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:
Regarding Claim 26 the Prior Art does not teach a component rigidity of the motor support unit is greater than a component rigidity of the housing.
Regarding Claim 28 the Prior Art does not teach the motor support unit is formed from a magnesium alloy.
Regarding Claim 32 the Prior Art does not teach the motor support unit has a middle section, wherein the middle section has a first curvature and a second curvature, and wherein the first curvature and the second curvature run in opposite directions to each other.
Regarding Claim 37 the Prior Art does not teach the motor support unit (10) is a motor support plate formed from a magnesium alloy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights