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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4-16-2026 has been entered.
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 “implement securing apparatus”, in claims 1, 10, 18.
The “energy storage apparatus” of claim 6
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”:
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.
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 “separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, of Claim 1, “wherein the motor shaft lock communicates with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, of Claim 10, “wherein the motor shaft lock is configured to communicate with a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, of Claim 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See 35 USC 112(a) rejection below for more details as to how this structure is not shown.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of Claim 1 reading: “a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, and of Claim 10, reading “wherein the motor shaft lock communicates with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, and of Claim 18 reading “wherein the motor shaft lock is configured to communicate with a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding these limitations, on par. 0030 of the present specification it is noted that
“The locker and actuator assemblies of motor shaft locking apparatus 131 of
embodiments of the invention may include features in addition to or in the alternative to the features of the examples above. For example, the actuator assembly may include latching apparatus (e.g., friction fit, latch, lock, catch, clasp, etc.) configured to hold the actuator in an actuated and/or non-actuated position. 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.”
No other mention is made in the specification of a switch or a separate safety interlock in addition to the latching apparatus. Also, as noted above, no switch or safety interlock separate from the safety interlock appears to be shown in the figures. The passage cited above does not disclose which structures comprise the noted “switch” nor what structure of such a switch leads to the function of preventing operation of the motor. Thus, the above cited limitations were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-20 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 limitations of Claim 1 reading: “a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, and of Claim 10 reading “wherein the motor shaft lock communicates with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, and of Claim 18 reading “wherein the motor shaft lock is configured to communicate with a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged”, are indefinite. First, while a separate safety interlock and or a switch are described broadly in par. 0030 of the specification, (see quoted passage above in the 35 USC 112a rejection section), no switch/separate safety interlock appears to shown in the figures. Thus, it is not clear which structure in the figures, if any makes up these limitations. Also, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of “prevent operation of the motor” (Claims 1, 10, and 18), or “communicate/s with” (Claims 10 and 18), are, since such a structure is not shown in the figures, nor described in any detail in the specification. For instance, if a switch powers off a motor while the motor shaft lock is engaged, does this comprise sufficient “communication” to meet the limitation? Do the motor shaft lock and the separate safety interlock/switch need to be electrically, mechanically or otherwise connected? Or do they simply need to work at the same time as one another, on either the same or different parts of the machine? Also, it is not clear how the safety interlock prevents operation of the motor. If a safety stops, starts, or helps slow down a motor shaft, is this sufficient to meet the limitation?
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, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20050166741, Kopras.
Regarding Claim 1, Kopras discloses a system for removably coupling a detachable implement (“cutting tool” par. 0032) to a garden machine (20, par 0032, since the machine is portable and cuts, and thus can be used portably in a garden), the system comprising:
a motor shaft lock (shaft lock 54, par 0033) configured to engage a motor shaft assembly (nut 48 and “shaft” of par 0032-0033 to which parts 46 and 48 are attached; See fig. 2) of the garden machine and discourage movement of a shaft (“shaft” of par 0032-0033 to which part 46 is attached; See fig. 2) of the motor shaft assembly, wherein the motor shaft lock is configured to communicate with a separate safety interlock (“switch” 34, par 0026) to prevent operation of the motor when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch 34 stops rotation of the motor shaft and can be switched while the motor shaft lock engages the shaft and thus acts in conjunction with the shaft lock 54, par 0060); and
an implement securing apparatus (46) configured for lockedly affixing the detachable implement (“cutting tool”, par 0032) to the shaft of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation of the implement securing apparatus and for removal of the detachable implement through manual manipulation of the implement securing apparatus (par 0032) when the motor shaft lock is engaged (par 0033).
Regarding Claim 2, in Kopras the implement securing apparatus 46 and the motor shaft lock 54 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 lock (par 0033).
Regarding Claim 3, in Kopras the motor shaft lock 54 comprises: one or more lockers (“lock pin”, par 0033) for engaging a first portion of the motor shaft assembly (portion of shaft which is contacted by the lock pin of part 54, par 0033) of the garden machine to discourage shaft rotation when the motor shaft lock engages the motor shaft assembly (par 0033, and fig 10), and wherein the first portion of the motor shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more motor shaft lock for discouraging shaft rotation (par 0033).
Regarding Claim 7, in Kopras the implement securing apparatus comprises 46: one or more manually operated releases 48 controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus with the shaft (par. 0032), and wherein a second portion of the shaft is configured in correspondence with the one or more manually operated releases 46 for the controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus (par 0032).
Regarding Claim 9, in Kopras the safety interlock comprises a switch (par 0026).
Regarding Claim 10, Kopras discloses a method for removably coupling a detachable implement (“cutting tool” par. 0032) to a garden machine (20, par 0032, since the machine is portable and cuts, and thus can be used portably in a garden; see also MPEP 2111.02.II, which states that “To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)”), the method comprising:
engaging a motor shaft lock (shaft lock 54, par 0033) through slidably moving a locker (“lock pin”, par 0033; also see the definition of “slide”, Merriam Webster’s Dictionary which is “to change position or become dislocated”; in par 0033 the “lock pin” is disclosed as chaining positions and to become dislocated, at least to the shaft) to discourage movement of a shaft (par 0033) (“shaft” of par 0032-0033 to which part 46 is attached; See fig. 2) of a motor shaft assembly (shaft and nut attached thereto), wherein the motor shaft lock communicates with
a switch (“switch” 34, par 0026) to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch 34 stops rotation of the motor shaft and can be switched while the motor shaft lock engages the shaft and thus acts in conjunction with the shaft lock 54, par 0060)
disengaging a manually operated release (exterior of nut 48) of an implement securing apparatus (nut 48) affixing the detachable implement (par 0032, “cutting tool bit”) to the shaft of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation (par 0032); and
twisting the implement securing apparatus (48) relative to the shaft while the release is disengaged and the shaft is discouraged from movement (par 0032), wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft lock 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 lock (par 0032-0033).
Regarding Claim 11, in Kopras, the locker engages a first portion of the motor shaft assembly of the garden machine (portion of shaft which is contacted by the lock pin of part 54, par 0033) when the motor shaft locking apparatus is engaged, and wherein the first portion of the motor shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the locker for discouraging shaft rotation (par 0032-0033).
Regarding Claim 15, in Kopras, a second portion of the shaft (portion of shaft engaged by nut 48) is configured in correspondence with the one or more manually operated release for controlling interfacing of the implement securing apparatus (par 0032 and 0033).
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopras as applied to Claims 3 and 11 above and in in view of USPGPUB 20050155227, Botefuhr.
Kopras 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 Kopras 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 12-14, Kopras 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 Kopras 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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopras as applied to Claims 7 and 15 above and further in view of USPN 1041831, Martin.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Ozawa 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.
Martin discloses a Nut Lock Mechanism, involved with the same problem of securing a nut to a shaft as is dealt with by the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes disengaging a manually operated release (user gripped portion of nut 11) by 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 Ozawa by including the disengaging of the manually operated release of Ozawa comprising 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.
Claims 10-11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015123070A, Ozawa, in view of Kopras (Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected here in the alternative, in order to address Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 10, Ozawa discloses a method for removably coupling a detachable implement (cutter 11) to a garden machine (brush cutter), the method comprising:
engaging a motor shaft lock (18 and 20) through slidably moving a locker 18 to discourage movement of a motor shaft assembly (2nd par. of pg. 4), and disengaging a manually operated release (exterior of nut 17) of an implement securing apparatus (nut 17) affixing the detachable implement 11 to the shaft of the motor shaft assembly through manual manipulation (2nd par. of pg. 4);
and twisting the implement securing apparatus 17 relative to the shaft (2nd par. of pg. 4) while the release is disengaged and the shaft is discouraged from movement (since the nut 17 can be removed while the motor shaft lock is engaged), wherein the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft lock 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 lock (since the nut 17 can be removed while the motor shaft lock is engaged).
Ozawa lacks wherein the motor shaft lock communicates with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged.
Kopras discloses a motor operated portable cutter in the same field of endeavor as the motor operated portable cutter of Ozawa, and discloses that such a system includes a motor shaft lock communicates with a switch (34) to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch 34 stops rotation of the motor shaft and can be switched while the motor shaft lock engages the shaft and thus acts in conjunction with the shaft lock 54, par 0060) in order to start and stop the operation of the motor in an easy to grasp manner, par 0053 (without causing fatigue to a user’s fingers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozawa by including the motor shaft lock communicating (being used in conjunction with, see 35 USC 112 rejection above) with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch and the lock of Kopras may be used at the same time) in order to start and stop the operation of the motor in an easy to grasp manner, as taught in Kopras.
Regarding Claim 11, in Ozawa, 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 Ozawa, 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 17, in Ozawa the garden machine comprises a lawn mower (since it is a brush cutter, see title, and thus can be used to cut/mow grass on a lawn) and the detachable implement comprises a grass cutting blade. (since the blade 11 cuts shrubs/grass).
Claims 12-14 are rejected (in the alternative) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Kopras as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Botefuhr.
Regarding Claims 12-14, modified Ozawa 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 Ozawa 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable (in the alternative) over Ozawa, in view of Kopras as applied to Claim 15 above and further in view of Martin.
Regarding Claim 16, Ozawa 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.
Martin discloses a Nut Lock Mechanism, involved with the same problem of securing a nut to a shaft as is dealt with by the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes disengaging a manually operated release (user gripped portion of nut 11) by 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 Ozawa by including the disengaging of the manually operated release of Ozawa comprising 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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa, in view of Kopras, and in view of Botefuhr.
Regarding Claim 18, Ozawa discloses a system for removably coupling a detachable grass cutting blade to a lawn mower (see title, “brush cutter”), the system comprising:
a manually actuated motor shaft lock (18, 19 and 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 (2nd par. of pg. 4, and see fig. 2),
an implement securing apparatus 17 configured interface with a second portion of the shaft (portion of shaft 13 to which nut 17 is attached) for affixing the detachable grass cutting blade 11 to the shaft 13 (2nd par. of 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 lock cooperate to facilitate installation and removal of the detachable grass cutting blade from the shaft (pg 4, second par.) without aid of tools other than the implement securing apparatus and the motor shaft lock, 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 nut 17 can be removed while the motor shaft lock is engaged),
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).
Ozawa lacks:
Feature I: wherein the sliding locker includes a wide slot section configured for unimpeded rotation of the shaft when the motor shaft lock is disengaged and a narrow slot section configured for interfacing with the first portion of the shaft when the motor shaft lock is engaged, and wherein the first portion of the shaft assembly is configured in correspondence with the one or more shaft lock for discouraging shaft rotation,
And Feature II: wherein the motor shaft lock is configured to communicate with a separate safety interlock to prevent operation of the motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged;
Regarding Feature I: 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 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) (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) (Claim 19), 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 Ozawa 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.
Regarding Feature II: Kopras discloses a motor operated portable cutter in the same field of endeavor as the motor operated portable cutter of Ozawa, and discloses that such a system includes a motor shaft lock communicates with a switch (34) to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch 34 stops rotation of the motor shaft and can be switched while the motor shaft lock engages the shaft and thus acts in conjunction with the shaft lock 54, par 0060) in order to start and stop the operation of the motor in an easy to grasp manner, par 0053 (without causing fatigue to a user’s fingers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozawa by including the motor shaft lock communicating (being used in conjunction with, see 35 USC 112 rejection above) with a switch to prevent operation of a motor assembly when the motor shaft lock is engaged (since the switch and the lock of Kopras may be used at the same time) in order to start and stop the operation of the motor in an easy to grasp manner, as taught in Kopras.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa, in view of Kopras, and in view of Botefuhr as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Martin.
Ozawa 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.
Martin discloses a Nut Lock Mechanism, involved with the same problem of securing a nut to a shaft as is dealt with by the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes disengaging a manually operated release (user gripped portion of nut 11) by 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 further modify Ozawa by including the disengaging of the manually operated release of Ozawa comprising 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/16/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112f claim interpretations have been fully considered and are partially persuasive and partially not persuasive. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 10 and 18 to change the term “motor shaft locking apparatus” to “motor shaft lock”, which obviates the interpretation of the term under 35 USC 112f with regard to these limitations. Applicant has not addressed the interpretation under this statute with regard to the terms “implement securing apparatus” and “energy storage apparatus”; thus these limitations are still treated under this statute.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/16/26, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) and under 102/103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) and the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 112a and b are made due to the lack of support and indefiniteness of the new claim limitations and in view of Kopras.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 3958398 3157978 4117651 3018602 4730952 4660286 and 3958398 disclose state of the art gardening devices while USPGPUBs discloses 20030136010 discloses a nut securing device. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
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
Prosecution Insights