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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of claims filed on 03/24/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, and 4-8 are pending for examination.
Cancellation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statements, filed 04/24/2025 and 08/11/2025, which have been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of each of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
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, and 4-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites in part “from a side on which the side handle cannot be gripped to a side on which the side handle can be gripped” in lines 22-23. However, considering the claim as a whole, and in light of the specification and drawings, the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated, and the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear. Indeed, it is unclear how a user cannot grab the side handle from either side. It appears that a user can grip the side handle from wither side using either arm. The word “cannot” render the claim indefinite and correction, and clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (US 20200306948 A1) in view of Gwosdz et al. (US 20210255715 A1), and in further view Iwata (US 20140116737 A1).
Attention is directed to Applicants use of alternative language, “or” which means that only one of the requirements (A or B) is needed to meet the claim, In this instance case, the office is only required to meet one of the requirements i.e. either option A or B.
Regarding claim 1, Osawa discloses an electric work equipment (1), comprising:
a body case (10);
a work tool (20) formed to protrude forward from a front portion of the body case (10; Fig. 3);
a motor (30) housed in the body case (10) and configured to drive the work tool (20);
a battery (90) removably disposed in the body case (10; Fig. 3) and configured to supply power to the motor ([0021]-[0022] and [0040]-[0043]);
a handle (40) protruding from the body case (10) and configured to be gripped ([0022] and [0043]);
a trigger lever (43a) disposed on a lower surface of the handle (40; Fig. 3) and configured such that the power is supplied from the battery (90) to the motor (30) when the trigger lever (43a) is operated ([0053]);
a side handle (50) mounted on a side surface of the body case (10) and extending around a perimeter of the body case (10; Fig. 3); and
a switch panel (45, 46, 47, 40a) disposed on an upper surface of the handle (“arranged on the upper surface of the front end part 41 of the top handle 40”), the switch paned (45, 46, 40a) including a power switch (46) and an indicator light (47),
the power switch (46) being configured to make the motor operable when the power switch (46) is an ON state and to stop operation of the motor when the power switch is an OFF state ([0052]),
the indicator light (47) indicating the ON and OFF states of the power switch ([0056]),
wherein a top surface of the switch panel (45, 46, 47, 40a)
Osawa does not teach a top surface of the switch panel is inclined downward from a side on which the side handle is not mounted to a side on which the side handle is mounted or from a side on which the side handle cannot be gripped to a side on which the side handle can be gripped.
Gwosdz in a related invention teaches a switch panel (6, 7, 8) is formed to be inclined downward from a right to left side thereof or from the left to right side thereof (the panel is arranged on a non-parallel, inclined, curved or kinked surface so that the elements remains visible and operable in working positions tilted about the longitudinal axis; [0011]-[0015], [0044]-[0047], and Fig. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switch panel arrangement of Osawa by inclining the switch panel laterally (right-left or left-right) as taught by Gwosdz since both references are directed to ergonomic arrangements of switches and displays on handles of a handheld electric tools. Doing this improves visibility and operability of the power switch when the chain saw is tilted during use (Gwosdz: [0012]), which is a predictable use of known ergonomic techniques. Additionally, modifying the switch panel of Osawa to be inclined downward as suggested by Gwosdz would have been an obvious design choice motivated by ergonomic considerations and improved visibility during tilting operations as explained by Gwosdz since Osawa already teaches a side handle, having the panel inclined towards the side as taught by Gwosdz an obvious design choice motivated by ergonomic considerations and improved visibility during tilting operations.
Osawa as modified doesn’t teach the power switch is located closer to the side on which the side handle is mounted than the indicator light.
. Iwata teaches an electric work equipment wherein the power switch (44) is located closer to the side on which a side handle (22) is mounted than the indicator light (45a-45d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power switch of Osawa as modified by locating it closer to the side on which the side handle is mounted than the indicator light as taught by Iwata since both references are directed to ergonomic arrangements of switches and displays on handles of a handheld electric tools. Doing this improves visibility and operability of the power switch (Iwata: [0029]), which is a predictable use of known ergonomic techniques. Additionally, modifying the power switch of Osawa by locating it closer to the side on which the side handle is mounted than the indicator light as suggested by Iwata would have been an obvious design choice motivated by ergonomic considerations and improved visibility during operations as explained by Iwata.
Osawa as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the power switch (44 of Iwata as modified) is disposed to be closer to the side on which the side handle (22 of Iwata as modified) is mounted (Fig. 1 of Iwata) or the side on which the side handle can be gripped than an axis extending in a front-rear direction and passing through the center in a left-right direction of the handle.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the power switch (44 of Iwata as modified) is disposed on an axis extending in a front-rear direction and passing through the center in a left-right direction of the handle (13; Fig. 1 of Iwata). Doing this improves visibility and operability of the power switch (Iwata: [0029]), which is a predictable use of known ergonomic techniques.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the power switch is disposed in a position that does not overlap a position of the trigger lever in plan view (Osawa teaches power switch 46 disposed on upper surface of front end part 41 of handle 40, trigger lever 43a is disposed on lower gripping part 43 which is rearward of front end 46; in plan view (top view), the forward position of the power switch 46 does not overlap the rearward position of trigger lever 43a).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the switch panel (45, 46, 40a of Osawa as modified by Gwosdz fig. 5-6) a curved surface (“curved or kinked course” [0011] and [0015] of Gwosdz).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the electric work equipment is a chainsaw ([0020] of Osawa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 4-8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights