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 § 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 and 3-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, and the expression “”at least one of the movable blade”, the disclosure does not teach the situation that there are two movable blades and how the two movable are movable relative to the fixed blade for cutting.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinhauer et al. (2023/0172113), hereinafter Steinhauer.
Regarding claim 1, Steinhauer teaches a shear device comprising:
at least one movable blade 144 movable relative to a further member 142 to provide a cutting mechanism in use, at least one of the at least one movable blade and the further member movable via a motor;
a movable input (214, 216) configured to allow selection of a maximum separation between the at least one movable 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 at least one movable blade and the further member can be varied continuously and steplessly accordingly; and
a manual actuator 170 configured to control the motor to allow movement of the at least one movable blade between an open position and a closed position;
wherein movement of the motor is controlled via an electronic controller, and the controller is configured to move the at least one movable blade in accordance with maximum separation provided by the movable input.
See Figs. 1-4.
See Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 18; and para. [0005] and [0037].
Regarding claim 3, Steinhauer teaches the electric controller for controlling the movement of the movable blade via the movable input 216.
Regarding claim 5, a sensor 1822 for detecting a position of the movable blade is best seen in Fig. 18.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the movable input 214 stops the power going to the motor.
Regarding claim 8, the manual actuator 170 and the movable input (214, 216) being spaced apart are best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, a second blade 142 is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, a slider actuator 1004 is best seen in Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 13, Steinhauer teaches a maximum angular separation. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 14, Steinhauer teaches a battery 1814 in Fig. 18.
Regarding claim 15, Steinhauer teaches a shear device comprising:
at least one movable blade movable 144 relative to a further member 142 to provide a cutting mechanism in use, at least one of the at least one movable blade and the further member movable via a motor;
a movable input 216 configured to allow selection of a maximum separation between the at least one movable blade 144 and the further member 142;
an electric controller configured to control movement of the motor of the cutting mechanism, and where the controller is configured to move the at least one 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 at least one blade in respond to movement of the moveable input such that the movable input and the movable blade move in concert and synchronously; and
a manual actuator 170 configured to control the motor to allow movement of the at least one movable blade between an open position and a closed position.
See Figs. 1, 5, and 7; and para. [0005] and [0037].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauer et al. (2023/0172113), hereinafter Steinhauer in view of Delmas (2013/0055575).
Regarding claim 4, Steinhauer 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 Steinhauer 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauer et al. (2023/0172113), hereinafter Steinhauer.
Regarding claim 9, Steinhauer teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the movable input spaced further from the movable blade than the manual actuator.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the movable input spaced further from the movable blade than the manual actuator since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauer et al. (2023/0172113), hereinafter Steinhauer in view of Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705).
Regarding claim 10, Steinhauer teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the manual actuator having a spring for automatically returning the manual actuator to the open position.
Yoshihiro teaches a shear device having a manual actuator 6 having a spring 12 for automatically returning the manual actuator to a open position. See Fig. 3A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the manual actuator in Steinhauser a spring as taught by Yoshihiro for automatically returning the manual actuator to the open position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not in view of the new ground of rejections. Steinhauser teaches a shear having an actuator and a cutting mode actuator for setting up angular openings of the blades.
Conclusion
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