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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 19 and 20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
They recite multiple gussets and further limit the shape.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A).
With regard to claim 1, Nelson ‘370 (“Nelson”) discloses a combination garden tool comprising: an elongate shaft (7) extending along a central longitudinal axis, the shaft having a first end and a second end; a spade (6) extending along the central longitudinal axis, the spade being attached to the first end of the shaft; and a multi-tine cultivator (8) extending from the second end of the shaft, generally orthogonally to the central longitudinal axis, wherein the tool is of unitary construction. Nelson fails to teach a sickle. Royse ‘854 (“Royse”) shows a combination garden tool comprising a multi-tine cultivator and a sickle attached to one end of a shaft, wherein the sickle extends away from the cultivator (Fig. 6). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second end of the Nelson tool with the addition of a sickle extending away from the cultivator, as suggested by Royse. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide the tool with means for cutting weeds and other small plants, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 1, the combination of Nelson and Royse fails to teach a transverse gusset. Burns ‘941 shows a soil anchor (Figs. 21, 22) comprising three tines (10, 10L, 10R) and a transverse gusset (16) connecting adjacent of each of the three tines. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art tool with the addition of a transverse gusset (Burns, 16) connecting adjacent tines. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reinforcing the tines, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, in the combination of Nelson and Royse, Royse teaches an elongate shaft expanded (Royse, d) at its end (Royse, Fig. 2). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the shaft (Nelson, 7) of the prior art tool at both its first and second ends, as suggested by Royse. The motivation for making the modifications would have been to enhance the strength of the elongate shaft at the business ends of the tool, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 11, neither Nelson nor Royse teaches a serrated edge. However, it would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spade (Nelson, 6) of the prior art tool such that it would have comprised a serrated edge, since the examiner takes Official Notice of serrations on earth-working tools as effective means for cutting through hard and fibrous materials, such as hardened soil clumps and plant roots. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate severance of plant roots.
With regard to claim 14, in the combination of Nelson and Royse, the cultivator (Nelson, 8) comprises three tines (Nelson, 16, 17, 18).
With regard to claim 17, in the combination of Nelson and Royse, the sickle (Royse) comprises a convex edge distal from the shaft (Royse, Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 18, in the combination of Nelson and Royse, the convex edge has a sharp point (Royse, Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nino et al. (US D779,059 S).
With regard to claims 2-4, in the combination of Nelson and Royse, the shaft (Nelson, 7) comprises a central body portion, but neither prior art reference teaches longitudinal ribs or radial ribs. Nino et al. ‘059 (“Nino”) shows (Fig. 7) an elongate shaft (10) comprising a central body portion (i.e., the ribbed portion) having a plurality of longitudinal ribs extending around the central body portion and a plurality of radial ribs extending orthogonally to the longitudinal ribs, wherein the longitudinal ribs and the radial ribs form a grip. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central body portion of the prior art tool (Nelson) with the addition of longitudinal ribs and radial ribs, as suggested by Nino. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for enhancing the grip of the handle (Nelson, 7), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manuel (US 2010/0319161 A1).
With regard to claim 5, neither Nelson nor Royse teaches a bulge portion. Manuel ‘161 (“Manuel”) shows a flexible, elongated shaft (10) comprising a bulge portion (12) between a first end and a second end of the shaft. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified by the shaft (Nelson, 7) of the prior art tool with the addition of a bulge portion (Manuel, 12), as suggested by Manuel. The motivation for making the modification would have been to incorporate means for ease of handling (Manuel, ¶0018), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to both claims 6 and 7, neither Nelson nor Royse teaches a convex portion between the bulge portion and the first end, or a convex portion between the bulge portion and the second end. However, as Manuel teaches a bulge portion having a convex portion (Manuel, Figs. 1 and 2), which serves to promote handling by a user, it would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a convex portion between the bulge portion and each of the ends of the shaft (Nelson, 7). The motivation for making the modifications would have been to enhance handling and maneuverability of implements at each end, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tongxiang (DE 2020 17101026 U1).
With regard to claim 12, neither Nelson nor Royse teaches parallel ribs. Tongxiang ‘026 (“Tongxiang”) discloses a spade (1) comprising a plurality of longitudinally extending parallel ribs (111), which serve to reinforce the spade. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spade (Nelson, 6) of the prior art tool such that it would have included a plurality of longitudinally extending parallel ribs (Tongxiang, 111), as suggested by Tongxiang. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reinforcing the spade, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dykyj et al. (US 8,707,491 B1).
With regard to claim 13, neither Nelson nor Royse teaches depth scales. Dykyj et al. ‘491 (“Dykyj”) shows a combination garden tool (100) having a spade (105) and teaches expressly a plurality of depth scales on the spade for measuring soil depth during use (col. 12, ll. 50-1). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spade (Nelson, 6) of the prior art tool with the addition of a plurality of depth scales (Dykyj, col. 12, ll. 50-1), as suggested by Dykyj. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for indicating soil depth during use, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2,947,370 A) in view of Royse (US 208,854 A) and Burns (AU 2006213941 A), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Price (US 20190308305 A1).
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Nelson and Royse fails to teach an edge gusset. Price ‘305 shows a tool (10) comprising tines (126) and an edge gusset (124) connecting the outer tines to a shaft (120; ¶ 0021). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art tool with the addition of an edge gusset (Price, 124) connecting the outer tines to the shaft (Nelson, 7), as suggested by Price. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reinforcing the tines (Price, ¶ 0021), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-18, Applicant repeats arguments made during the telephonic interview held on 18 September 2025. See the interview summary mailed 23 September 2025 for the examiner’s response.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
30 September 2025