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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “motor shaft locking apparatus”, and the “implement securing apparatus”, in claims 1, 10, 18.
The “energy storage apparatus” of claim 6
With regard to the term “motor shaft locking apparatus”, :
first, the term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “motor shaft locking”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “motor shaft locking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the motor shaft locking apparatus.
With regard to the term “implement securing apparatus”, :
first, the term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “implement securing apparatus”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “implement securing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the motor implement securing apparatus.
With regard to the term the “energy storage apparatus”, in claim 6.
first, the term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “energy storage”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “energy storage” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the energy storage apparatus.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 1, reading: “wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus is configured to communicate with a safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged” of claim 1 and reading “the motor shaft locking apparatus is configured to communicate with a safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly” of claim 10 are indefinite. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of a safety interlock are. Interlock is defined by Merriam webster’s dictionary as “an arrangement in which the operation of one part or mechanism automatically brings about or prevents the operation of another”. In the specification at par. 0030 it is disclosed that “As another example, a safety interlock (e.g., power disconnect switch, ignition ground switch, etc.) may be provided in communication with the actuator and/or locker to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged.”. This seems to leave the possibility for n interlock to be either a power disconnect switch, an ignition ground switch, or some other mechanical assembly. For purposes of advancing prosecution, said limitation will be interpreted as either being an power disconnect switch, ignition ground switch, or some other mechanism which includes an arrangement in which the operation of one part or mechanism automatically brings about or prevents the operation of another, as best understood in view of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015123070 A, Hirohisa.
Regarding Claim 1, Hirohisa discloses a system for removably coupling a detachable implement 11 to a garden machine (90 “brush cutter”), the system comprising:
a motor shaft locking apparatus (18 and 20) configured to engage a motor shaft assembly 13 of the garden machine and discourage movement of a shaft of the motor shaft 13 assembly (pg. 4 second par. “fixing pin 18 is mounted on the bearing 14 at the top of the motor case 12. The operator can prevent the cutting blade shaft portion 13 from rotating by pushing the fixing pin 18 and locking the tip of the fixing pin 18 in the groove 13C [of shaft 13]”); wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus is configured to communicate with a safety interlock (13C) to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (pg. 4 second par. “fixing pin 18 is mounted on the bearing 14 at the top of the motor case 12. The operator can prevent the cutting blade shaft portion 13 from rotating by pushing the fixing pin 18 and locking the tip of the fixing pin 18 in the groove 13C”) and
an implement securing apparatus 113 configured for lockedly affixing the detachable implement (11) to the shaft (13) of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation and for removal (of the implement) through manual manipulation when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (1st par. 0f page 3, and 2nd par pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, in Hirohisa the implement securing apparatus 113 and the motor shaft locking apparatus (18/20) cooperate to facilitate installation and removal of the detachable implement from the shaft without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus (1st par. 0f page 3, and 2nd par pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, in Hirohisa the motor shaft locking apparatus comprises:
one or more lockers 18 for engaging a first portion 13C of the shaft assembly 13 of the garden machine discouraging shaft rotation when the motor shaft locking apparatus engages the motor shaft assembly (2nd par pg. 4), and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more shaft locking apparatus for the discouraging shaft rotation (2nd par pg. 4 and see fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7, in Hirohisa the implement securing apparatus comprises: one or more manually operated releases (threaded portion of the part 113 controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus with the shaft 13, and wherein a second portion of the shaft (threaded portion of shaft 13) is configured in correspondence with the one or more manually operated releases for the controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus (1st par pg 3).
Regarding Claim 9, in Hirohisa the garden machine comprises a lawn mower (since the device can be used to mow lawns) and the detachable implement comprises a grass cutting blade (pg. 6, 5th par.).
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 of this title, 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 4-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa in view of USPGPUB 20050155227, Botefuhr.
Regarding Claims 4-6, Hirohisa includes all of the limitations of claim 3 as cited above. Hirohisa lacks the one or more lockers comprise: a sliding locker having a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (claim 4), the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: a biased actuator configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (claim 5) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section (claim 6).
Botefuhr discloses a Spindle Lock Mechanism For Rotary Power Hand Tool, in the same field of endeavor as the shaft locking device of a rotary hand tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a sliding locker 32 having a wide slot section 58 configured for unimpeded rotation of a motor shaft 30 when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged (par 0022) and a narrow slot section 38 configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (par 0022-0023) (claim 4), the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: a biased actuator 44 (biased via spring 60) configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (See par 0024) (claim 5) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus 60 biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section (par 0023) (claim 6), in order to “ develop a Spindle lock mechanism that is inexpensive, effective and convenient to engage and which does not risk damage to the output gears or the like during operation” par 0003.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa to make the one or more lockers comprise: a sliding locker having a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (claim 4), the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: a biased actuator configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (claim 5) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section (claim 6), in order to o develop a Spindle lock mechanism that is inexpensive, effective and convenient to engage and which does not risk damage to the output gears or the like during operation as taught in Botefuhr.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Hirohisa discloses A system for removably coupling a detachable grass cutting blade (11) to a lawn mower (brush cutting machine 90), the system comprising:
a manually actuated motor shaft locking apparatus 18/20
having a sliding locker 18 configured to engage a first portion (13C) of a shaft 13 of a motor assembly of the lawn mower and discourage rotation of the shaft rotation (pg. 4 second par. “fixing pin 18 is mounted on the bearing 14 at the top of the motor case 12. The operator can prevent the cutting blade shaft portion 13 from rotating by pushing the fixing pin 18 and locking the tip of the fixing pin 18 in the groove 13C [of shaft 13]”), wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus is configured to communicate with a safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (pg. 4 second par. “fixing pin 18 is mounted on the bearing 14 at the top of the motor case 12. The operator can prevent the cutting blade shaft portion 13 from rotating by pushing the fixing pin 18 and locking the tip of the fixing pin 18 in the groove 13C [of shaft 13]”),
and an implement securing apparatus 113 configured interface with a second portion of the shaft (threaded portion, at the bottom fig 2-3) for affixing the detachable grass cutting blade to the shaft (1st par. 0f page 3, and 2nd par pg. 4), wherein the implement securing apparatus includes one or more manually operated releases controlling rotation of the implement securing apparatus relative to the shaft (exterior portions of the nut 113 which are to be grasped by users, and thus controlled), wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus cooperate to facilitate installation and removal of the detachable grass cutting blade from the shaft without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus (1st par. 0f page 3, and 2nd par pg. 4, since the nut may be loosened while the locker engages shaft 13), and wherein the second portion of the shaft is configured in correspondence with the one or more manually operated releases for the controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus (since the size of the nut corresponds to the size of the threaded part of the shaft).
Hirohisa lacks wherein the sliding locker includes a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for interfacing with the first portion of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged, and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more shaft locking apparatus for the discouraging shaft rotation; (per Claim 18) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section; a biased actuator configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section ( per Claim 19).
Botefuhr discloses a Spindle Lock Mechanism For Rotary Power Hand Tool, in the same field of endeavor as the shaft locking device of a rotary hand tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a sliding locker 32 having a wide slot section 58 configured for unimpeded rotation of a motor shaft 30 when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged (par 0022) and a narrow slot section 38 (claim 18), and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus 60 biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section; a biased actuator configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (See par 0024) ( per Claim 19).
wherein the sliding locker includes a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section 38 configured for interfacing with the first portion of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged, and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more shaft locking apparatus for the discouraging shaft rotation (par 0021-0022); in order to “ develop a Spindle lock mechanism that is inexpensive, effective and convenient to engage and which does not risk damage to the output gears or the like during operation” par 0003.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa to make the one or more lockers comprise: a sliding locker having a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section wherein the sliding locker includes a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for interfacing with the first portion of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged, and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more shaft locking apparatus for the discouraging shaft rotation; (per Claim 18) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus biasing the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section; a biased actuator configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section ( per Claim 19), in order to o develop a Spindle lock mechanism that is inexpensive, effective and convenient to engage and which does not risk damage to the output gears or the like during operation as taught in Botefuhr.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa in view of Botefuhr as applied to Claims 7 and 18 (respectively) above, and further in view of US 0873033 Dunning.
Regarding Claim 8, Hirohisa lacks, wherein the one or more manually operated releases comprise: a pawl having a bias applied thereto encouraging the pawl to engage the second portion of the shaft and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine.
Dunning discloses a lawn mower in the same field of endeavor as the lawn more of the present invention, and includes an output shaft 6, which output shaft is connected to a cutting implement (12, 19, 16, and 20), and discloses that in such an assembly the shaft is connected to the implement by manually operated release mechanism which has a combination of a nut, 13, and a pawl 14 having a bias applied thereto encouraging the pawl to engage a second portion of the shaft (via a spring 15) and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine (col. 2, 65-80).
Hirohisa already includes a nut which helps couple the cutter to the output shaft thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa also have the output shaft coupling device comprise: wherein the one or more manually operated release comprise: a pawl having a bias applied thereto encouraging the pawl to engage the second portion of the shaft and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine, in order to have the pawl provide additional resistance to ensure that the cutter does not spin relative to the shaft during a use of the device.
Regarding Claim 20, Hirohisa lacks, wherein the one or more manually operated releases comprise: a pawl having a bias applied thereto encouraging the pawl to engage the second portion of the shaft and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine.
Dunning discloses a lawn mower in the same field of endeavor as the lawn more of the present invention, and includes an output shaft 6, which output shaft is connected to a cutting implement (12, 19, 16, and 20), and discloses that in such an assembly the shaft is connected to the implement by manually operated release mechanism which has a combination of a nut, 13, and a pawl 14 having a bias applied thereto and thus encouraging the pawl to engage a second portion of the shaft (via a spring 15) and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine (col. 2, 65-80).
Hirohisa already includes a nut which helps couple the cutter to the output shaft thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa also have the output shaft coupling device comprise: wherein the one or more manually operated release comprise: a pawl having a bias applied thereto encouraging the pawl to engage the second portion of the shaft and discourage movement of the implement securing apparatus during operation of the garden machine, in order to have the pawl provide additional resistance to ensure that the cutter does not spin relative to the shaft during a use of the device.
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa, in view of USPN 1041831, Martin.
Regarding Claim 10, Hirohisa discloses a method for removably coupling a detachable implement (cutter 11) to a garden machine, the method comprising:
engaging a motor shaft locking apparatus (18 and 20) through slidably moving a locker 18 to discourage movement of a shaft of the motor shaft assembly (2nd par. Of pg. 4) wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus communicates with a safety interlock to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged, (pg. 4 second par. “fixing pin 18 is mounted on the bearing 14 at the top of the motor case 12. The operator can prevent the cutting blade shaft portion 13 from rotating by pushing the fixing pin 18 and locking the tip of the fixing pin 18 in the groove 13C”);
Hirohisa lacks disengaging a manually operated release of an implement securing apparatus, and twisting the implement securing apparatus relative to the shaft while the release is disengaged and the shaft is discouraged from movement, wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus cooperate to facilitate removal of the detachable implement from the shaft without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus.
Instead of the above steps, Hirohisa simply includes a nut 17 for affixing the detachable implement to the shaft of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation; while the shaft is discouraged from movement (via the locker). Martin discloses a threaded implement securing apparatus, having a manually operated release, in the form of a lock nut, and, in the same field of endeavor as the nut 17 of Hirohisa, and discloses that such a system includes disengaging a manually operated release (19) of an implement securing apparatus (11, 13, 15, 19 and 20); and twisting the implement securing apparatus relative to a shaft 8 while the release is disengaged (from ratchet teeth 14, col 1 of page 2 lines 1-15), in order to prevent a user from accidentally unscrewing the part, but allowing unscrewing only after the pawl has been engaged by the user (col 1, pg 1, 1-20, and col 1, pg 2, 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa by including the structure of the implement-securing apparatus having the structural features noted above of Martin, and including the step(s) of disengaging a manually operated release of an implement securing apparatus affixing the detachable implement to the shaft of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation; and twisting the implement securing apparatus relative to the shaft while the release is disengaged and the shaft is discouraged from movement, wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus cooperate to facilitate removal of the detachable implement from the shaft without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus in order to prevent a user from accidentally unscrewing the part, but allowing unscrewing only after the pawl has been engaged by the user, as taught in Martin.
In use, as modified above; the shaft of modified Hirohisa would be discouraged from movement wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus cooperate to facilitate removal of the detachable implement from the shaft without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft locking apparatus, since this is the manner in which the nut is unscrew in Hirohisa (e.g. the release of the bottom implement engaging feature in Hirohisa is released while the locker is engaging the shaft).
Regarding Claim 11, in Hirohisa, the locker 18 engages a first portion of the shaft assembly 13C of the garden machine when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (2nd par pg. 4 and see fig 2), and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the locker for the discouraging shaft rotation, (see 2nd par pg. 4 and see fig 2).
Regarding Claim 15, in Hirohisa, a second portion of the shaft (threaded part) is configured in correspondence with the one or more manually operated release for controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus (see: 1st par pg 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Hirohisa lacks, disengaging the manually operated release comprises: overcoming a bias force applied to the pawl of the manually operated release to pivot an end of the pawl away from the second portion of the shaft.
In Martin, the disengaging the manually operated release comprises: overcoming a bias force applied to the pawl of the manually operated release to pivot an end of the pawl away from the second portion of the shaft (see page 1 lines 176-95, Martin), in order to prevent a user from accidentally unscrewing the part, but allowing unscrewing only after the pawl has been engaged by the user (col 1, pg 1, 1-20, and col 1, pg 2, 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa by including the disengaging the manually operated release comprises: overcoming a bias force applied to the pawl of the manually operated release to pivot an end of the pawl away from the second portion of the shaft in order to prevent a user from accidentally unscrewing the part, but allowing unscrewing only after the pawl has been engaged by the user, as taught in Martin.
Regarding Claim 17, in Hirohisa, the garden machine comprises a lawn mower (since the device can be used to mow lawns) and the detachable implement comprises a grass cutting blade (pg. 6, 5th par.).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa in view of Martin as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20050155227, Botefuhr.
Regarding Claims 12-14, Hirohisa lacks the one or more lockers comprise: wherein the locker comprises a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (claim 12), the motor shaft locking apparatus further having/comprising: applying a bias force encouraging relative movement of the locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (claim 13) and overcoming a bias force encouraging the locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section when engaging the motor shaft locking apparatus (claim 14).
Botefuhr discloses a Spindle Lock Mechanism For Rotary Power Hand Tool, in the same field of endeavor as the shaft locking device of a rotary hand tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a sliding locker 32 having a wide slot section 58 configured for unimpeded rotation of a motor shaft 30 when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged (par 0022) and a narrow slot section 38 configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (par 0022-0023) (claim 12), the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: a biased actuator 44 (biased via spring 60) which overcomes a bias force configured to encourage relative movement of the sliding locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (See par 0024) (claim 13) and wherein the motor shaft locking apparatus further comprises: an energy storage apparatus 60 biasing (and thus requiring the overcoming of said force) the sliding locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section (par 0023) (claim 14), in order to “ develop a Spindle lock mechanism that is inexpensive, effective and convenient to engage and which does not risk damage to the output gears or the like during operation” par 0003.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirohisa to make the one or more lockers comprise: the one or more lockers comprise: wherein the locker comprises a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for discouraging rotation of shaft when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged (claim 12), the motor shaft locking apparatus further having/comprising: applying a bias force encouraging relative movement of the locker to interface with the first portion of the shaft assembly when the shaft is insufficiently aligned with the narrow slot section (claim 13) and overcoming a bias force encouraging the locker to a position in which the first portion of the shaft assembly is disposed in the wide slot section when engaging the motor shaft locking apparatus (claim 14) in order to o develop a Spindle lock the output gears or the like during operation as taught in Botefuhr.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11-05-2025, with respect to Claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with examiner’s recommendations, and thus rendering the previously filed claim objections now moot. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11-5-25 as to the interpretations of the claims under 112f have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims should not be interpreted under 112f because the claims do not include the term means, and because according to applicant the placeholder apparatus is modified by sufficient structure. However, each of the terms motor shaft locking, energy storage, and implement securing are simply functional terms which do not impart sufficient structure to have the limitations not be interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant's arguments filed 11-5-25 as to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hirohisha lacks a safety interlock mechanism. However, the part 13C may be considered a safety interlock mechanism in accordance with how this structure is defined in the specification and in accordance with the 35 USC 112 interpretation.
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).
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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724