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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshihiro teaches a shear device comprising:
at least one movable blade movable 9 relative to a further member 8 to provide a cutting mechanism in use, at least one of the blade and the further member movable via a motor;
a movable input 6 configured to allow selection of a maximum separation between the blade 9 and the further member 8; and
an electric controller configured to control movement of the motor of the cutting mechanism, and where the controller is configured to move the movable blade to the maximum separation to response to selection of the maximum separation via the movable input and where the electronic controller is configured to control movement of the blade in respond to movement of the moveable input such that the movable input and the movable blade move in concert and synchronously.
See Fig. 2 and para. [0005], [0028], [0032], and [0034].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezher (2014/028392) in view of Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705).
Regarding claim 1, Mezher teaches a shear device substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
at least one movable blade 102 movable relative to a further member 104 to provide a cutting mechanism in use, at least one of the blade and the further member movable via a motor; and
a movable input (122, 204) configured to allow selection of a maximum separation between the blade and the further member, where the movable input is movable to allow continuous and stepless selection of the maximum separation such that the maximum separation between the blade and the further member can be varied continuously and steplessly accordingly;
wherein movement of the motor is controlled via an electronic controller, and the controller is configured to move the blade in accordance with maximum separation provided by the movable input.
See Figs. 1-4.
Mezher does not teach a movable input where the movable input is movable to allow continuous and stepless selection of the maximum separation such that the maximum separation between the blade and the further member can be varied continuously and steplessly accordingly, and wherein movement of the motor is controlled via an electronic controller, and the controller is configured to move the blade in accordance with maximum separation provided by the movable input.
Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) teaches a pruning having a pair of blades (8, 9) and a gap between the two blades being adjustable at any position between two extreme positions of the two blades by a movable input 6. See Fig. 2 and para. [0005], [0028], [0032], and [0034]. In other words, the gaps can be adjusted continuously and steplessly. This type of adjustment provides unlimited cutting positions for the secateur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the gaps between the blades in Mezher being adjustable continuously and steplessly by a movable input as taught by Yoshihiro for providing unlimited cutting positions for the shear device.
Regarding claim 3, an electric controller is best seen in Fig. 4 in Mezher. Yoshihiro also teaches an electric controller.
Regarding claim 5, a sensor 412 is best seen in Fig. 4. Yoshihiro also teaches a sensor.
Regarding claim 6, the input 204 can deny the power to the motor. The input 120 can deny the power to the motor.
Regarding claim 7, the input 204 closes the cutting mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, a blade 104 is best seen in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 13, Mezher teaches an angular separation.
Regarding claim 14, a battery 304 is best seen in Fig. 3.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR101713622) in view of Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a shear device substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
at least one movable blade 410 movable relative to a further member 420 to provide a cutting mechanism in use, at least one of the blade and the further member movable via a motor; and
a movable input (140, 150, 152) configured to allow selection of a maximum separation between the blade and the further member, where the movable input is movable to allow continuous and stepless selection of the maximum separation such that the maximum separation between the blade and the further member can be varied continuously and steplessly accordingly;
wherein movement of the motor is controlled via an electronic controller, and the controller is configured to move the blade in accordance with maximum separation provided by the movable input.
See Figs. 1-4.
Shin does not teach a movable input where the movable input is movable to allow continuous and stepless selection of the maximum separation such that the maximum separation between the blade and the further member can be varied continuously and steplessly accordingly, and wherein movement of the motor is controlled via an electronic controller, and the controller is configured to move the blade in accordance with maximum separation provided by the movable input.
Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) teaches a pruning having a pair of blades (8, 9) and a gap between the two blades being adjustable at any position between two extreme positions of the two blades by a movable input 6. See Fig. 2 and para. [0005], [0028], [0032], and [0034]. In other words, the gaps can be adjusted continuously and steplessly. This type of adjustment provides unlimited cutting positions for the secateur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the gaps between the blades in Shin being adjustable continuously and steplessly by a movable input as taught by Yoshihiro for providing unlimited cutting positions for the shear device.
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the motor being controlled by an electric controller. Yoshihiro also teaches an electric controller.
Regarding claim 8, a manual actuator (150, 152) is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, the input being spaced further from the blade than the actuator is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 10, the actuator (150, 152) can control opening and closing of the blade.
Regarding claim 11, a blade 420 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, a slider 152 is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 13, Shin teaches an angular separation.
Regarding claim 14, a battery 104 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR101713622) in view of Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delmas (2013/0055575).
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the separation distance being determined based on a driving speed of the motor.
Delmas teaches a shear device having a controller configured to measure a speed of a motor for determining a separation distance of blades. See para. [0020], [0037], and [0040].
To use the sensors and to use a motor speed measuring device to determine a separation between the fixed blade and the movable blades are art equivalents known in the pruning device art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the speed of the motor as a way for determine a distance or a maximum distance between the fixed blade and the movable blade in the shearing device of Shin since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezher (2014/028392) in view of Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delmas (2013/0055575).
Regarding claim 4, Mezher teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the separation distance being determined based on a driving speed of the motor.
Delmas teaches a shear device having a controller configured to measure a speed of a motor for determining a separation distance of blades. See para. [0020], [0037], and [0040].
To use the sensors and to use a motor speed measuring device to determine a separation between the fixed blade and the movable blades are art equivalents known in the pruning device art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the speed of the motor as a way for determine a distance or a maximum distance between the fixed blade and the movable blade in the shearing device of Mezher since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Yoshihiro reference is introduced to teach continuous (or stepless) adjustment of the gap between the cutting two blades by using a movable input.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights