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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “said aft end is raised along a back of said shovel head and includes a planar surface for contact with a foot of an operator to push said shovel head downward” (Claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “a telescopic handle” (line 1) and further recites “said telescopic handle includes a plurality of telescoping slots to adjust a length of said telescopic handle.” It is understood that a telescopic handle to adjust a length of said telescopic handle, but the recitation of “a plurality of telescoping slots” is confusing and not clearly understood. The phrase “telescoping slots” appears to be misleading. Applicant describes “telescoping slots” in the paragraph [0030], but specification lacks the structural feature or subject matter of describing as to how “a plurality of telescoping slots” is applied to adjust a length of said telescopic handle.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (D506,111) in view of Rosine et al. (7,581,771).
RE claim 1, Handley (D506,111) discloses a shovel (See Figs. 1-7) capable of cleaning out a trench, the shovel tool comprising: a shovel head (see Exhibit A); and an arcuate connector connecting said handle and said shovel head; wherein said telescopic handle includes a plurality of telescoping slots to adjust a length of said telescopic handle; wherein said shovel head includes a concave shaped curvature having a longitudinal central axis, terminal side edges, and a generally U-shaped front edge; wherein a length of said shovel head is greatest along said longitudinal central axis relative to a length of said side edges; wherein said side edges are raised along opposing sides of said shovel head, but does not specifically show a telescopic handle having a plurality of slots to adjust a length of said telescopic handle. However, Rosine et al. (7,581,771) teaches a shovel having a telescoping handle (see Fig. 2) with slots (44) to adjust a length of said telescopic handle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a telescoping handle on the arcuate connector of Handley (D506,111) as taught by Rosine et al. (7,581,771) to conveniently use the tool without a need to bend to a user.
RE claims 1, 2, 3, and 6, Regarding the specific structural dimension of the elements of shovel head includes a width measured between said side edges from about 2 inches to about 6 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a desired structural dimension on the Handley’s shovel (D506,111) to be suitable for the user’s preferences and the intended application.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Width of the shovel head and sidewalls )][AltContent: textbox (U-shape front end and a concave shape curvature shovel head)][AltContent: textbox (Flat back aft end)][AltContent: textbox (Arcuate connector)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (D506,111) and Rosine et al. (7,581,771) and further in view of Lesche (4,396,214).
Handley’s shovel (D506,111), as presented above, does not specifically show said handle includes a material selected from a group consisting of a steel and a fiberglass and said shovel head and said arcuate connector are one piece comprising 14-gauge carbon steel. However, Fig. 4 of Lesche’s shovel (4,396,214) teaches the handle is being made of 14-gauge carbon steel (see Col. 3, lines 47-53). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide 14-gauge carbon steel on the Handley (D506,111) as taught by Lesche (4,396,214).to provide a reliable and strong shovel to a user.
Claims 7-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (D506,111) and Rosine et al. (7,581,771) and further in view of Szymanski (D852,594).
RE claim 7, Handley’s shovel (D506,111), as presented above, does not specifically show said aft end is raised along a back of said shovel head and includes a planar surface for contact with a foot of an operator to push said shovel head. However, Figs. 1-8 of Szymanski (D852,594) show a shovel head having an aft end is raised along a back of said shovel head and includes a planar surface for contact with a foot of an operator to push said shovel head. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plan surface on the aft end of Handley (D506,111) so that a foot of an operator can conveniently push said shovel head.
RE claims 8 and 9, Regarding the specific structural dimension of the elements of shovel head includes a width measured between said side edges from about 2 inches to about 6 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a desired structural dimension on the Handley’s shovel (D506,111) to be suitable for the user’s preferences and the intended application.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (D506,111) and Rosine et al. (7,581,771) and further in view of Tummino et al. (5,401,071).
RE claims 10 and 15, Handley (D506,111) discloses a shovel (See Figs. 1-7) capable of cleaning out a trench, the shovel tool comprising: a shovel head (see Exhibit A); and an arcuate connector connecting said handle and said shovel head; wherein said telescopic handle includes a plurality of telescoping slots to adjust a length of said telescopic handle; wherein said shovel head includes a concave shaped curvature having a longitudinal central axis, terminal side edges, and a generally U-shaped front edge; wherein a length of said shovel head is greatest along said longitudinal central axis relative to a length of said side edges; wherein said side edges are raised along opposing sides of said shovel head, but does not specifically show a telescopic handle having a plurality of slots to adjust a length of said telescopic handle. However, Rosine et al. (7,581,771) teaches a shovel having a telescoping handle (see Fig. 2) with slots (44) to adjust a length of said telescopic handle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a telescoping handle on the arcuate connector of Handley (D506,111) as taught by Rosine et al. (7,581,771) to conveniently use the tool without a need to bend to a user. Handley’s shovel (D506,111), as presented above, still does not specifically show said aft end includes a foot step bar for selective contact with a foot of an operator to push said shovel head downward. However, Figs. 3-5 of Tummino et al. (5,401,071) show a shovel head having an aft end having a foot bar (28, 36) is raised along a back of said shovel head and includes a planar surface for contact with a foot of an operator to push said shovel head. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plan surface on the aft end of Handley (D506,111) as taught by Tummino et al. (5,401,071) so that a foot of an operator can conveniently push said shovel head without effort to a user.
RE claims 11-14 and 16-19, Regarding the specific structural dimension of the elements of shovel head includes a width measured between said side edges from about 2 inches to about 6 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a desired structural dimension on the Handley’s shovel (D506,111) to be suitable for the user’s preferences and the intended application.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (D506,111) and Rosine et al. (7,581,771) in view of Tummino et al. (5,401,071), and further in view of Lesche (4,396,214).
Handley’s shovel (D506,111), as presented above, does not specifically show said handle includes a material selected from a group consisting of a steel and a fiberglass and said shovel head and said arcuate connector are one piece comprising 14-gauge carbon steel. However, Fig. 4 of Lesche’s shovel (4,396,214) teaches the handle is being made of 14-gauge carbon steel (see Col. 3, lines 47-53). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide 14-gauge carbon steel on the Handley (D506,111) as taught by Lesche (4,396,214).to provide a reliable and strong shovel to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651