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 § 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, 3-6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) in view of Wu (2010/0299939) and Linden et al. (2017/0354095), Rusanen et al. (2024/0268275), hereinafter Rusanen, and Nie et al. (2012/0246942), hereinafter Nie.
Regarding claim 1, teaches a tree pruner substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
a pruner body comprising a first body section 1 and a second body section 2 spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the pruner body,
a blade system 5 connected to the first body section, the blade system comprising:
a first blade 8 having a first shape and
a second blade 9 having a second shape, the first blade and the second blade adapted to co-operate with each other for cutting branches, wherein the second blade are adapted to move relative to the first blade,
a drive mechanism 22 provided in the second body section, the drive mechanism comprising an operating switch 6 for actuating the second blade about an axis, the operating switch operable in a first switch position, a second switch position, and a third switch position having a first actuation mode in the first switch position, a second actuation mode in the second switch position, and a third actuation mode in the third switch position, the operating switch configured to maintain a position of the second blade relative to the first blade after entering one of the first actuation mode, the second actuation mode, and the third actuation mode until entering another of the first actuation mode, the second actuation mode, and the third actuation mode,
wherein by the first actuation mode, the blade system is configured to move from a blades-open position to a gripping position and stay in said gripping position, wherein the first blade and the second blade are releasably locked, and wherein the first shape and the second shape are configured such that in a first position of the second blade relative to the first blade, edges the first blade and the second blade form a gap with an area in a plane perpendicular to the axis, the area increasing from a first region to a second region and decreasing from the second region to a third region, the gap extending from tips of the first blade and the second blade with the tips being located in the first region, the third region extending between the axis and at least a portion of the second region, each of the first region, the second region, and the third region, extending along a different portion of the first blade and a different portion of the second blade, the operating switch configured to stay in one of the first switch position, the second switch position, and the third switch position until entering another of the first switch position, the second switch position, and the third switch position,
wherein by the second actuation of the operating switch, the blade system is configured to move from the blades-open position to a cutting position, wherein the gripping position is between the blades-open position and the cutting position, and
wherein by the third actuation mode, the blade system is configured to move from the gripping position to the cutting position.
See Figs. 1-3 and 6.
A-Yoshihiro teaches a gap formed by the movement of the second blade. However, Yoshihiro does not teach the gap formed by the first blade and the second blade having a tear drop shape.
Linden teaches a tree pruner having a first blade 112 and a second 111 forming a gap having a tear drop shape. See Fig. 1.
Wu also teaches a tree pruner having a first blade 32 and a second 31 forming a gap having a tear drop shape. See Figs. 1 and 5.
The tear drop gap as taught by Linden and Wu helps the blade griping a branch better during a cutting stroke.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the blades in Yoshihiro forming a gap having a tear drop shape as taught by Linden and Wu for helping the blade griping a branch better during a cutting stroke.
B-Regarding the limitation of the operating switch having three switch positions, and the switch staying at one position before moving to the next position, the switch 6 in Yoshihiro can pivot and stop at indefinite positions between a closed position and an open position of the blades with the help of a finger. Therefore, there are three positions of the switch.
To the degree the Applicant would argue that the switch is a stepped switch having preset positions, Nie teaches a stepped switch 9 in Fig. 1. Rusanen teaches a stepped switch in form of dial or buttons in para. [0044].
The stepless switch and the stepped switch are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a stepped switch in the tree pruner of Yoshihiro 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the device of Yoshihiro is capable of being at a gripping position at 20-60% length of an operation movement since the blade is moved according to the movement of element 6.
Regarding claim 4, a motor 22 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshihiro teaches a control system (not shown) for controlling the motor 22. A transmission system having a transmission rope 3 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshihiro teaches the motor rotating in two opposite directions for closing and opening the blades.
Regarding claim 9, a tube 32 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, a trigger switch 6 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, a spring 14 is best seen in Fig. 3A.
Regarding claim 13, since 3 is flexible cable, the first body section is capable of being rotated relative to the second body section around a rotational axis perpendicular to the pruner body.
Regarding claim 14, the blades (8, 9) are best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 17-20, when the blades are partially closed, the tips of the blades are almost touch each other.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshihiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the transmission rope being a non-metallic synthetic material. To select a well-known material such as a non-metallic synthetic material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) in view of Wu (2010/0299939), Linden et al. (2017/0354095), Rusanen et al. (2024/0268275), hereinafter Rusanen, and Nie et al. (2012/0246942) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Pittau (EP 3,876,696).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshihiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the transmission system having a rope reel.
Pittau teaches a pruner including a transmission system having a rope reel (13, 40). See Figs. 4 and 6.
The transmission system without a reel as taught by Yoshihiro and the transmission system with reel as taught by Pittau are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a transmission system having a reel as taught in Pittau in the pruner of Yoshihiro 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.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshihiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the first body section rotating relative to the second body section a rotational axis perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the pruner body.
Pittau teach a pruner having a first body section 3 rotating relative to a second body section 36 a rotational axis perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of a pruner body so that a user can adjust cutting angles of the pruner. See Figs. 1 and 9-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the first body section in Hoshihira adjustable as taught by Pittau so that a user can adjust cutting angles of the pruner.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshihiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the pruner body having a telescopic structure.
Pittau teaches a pruner having a telescopic body (14, 15) so that a user can adjust cutting lengths of the pruner. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the pruner body in Yoshihiro having a telescopic structure as taught by Pittau so that a user can adjust cutting lengths of the pruner
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (WO2008/023705) in view of Wu (2010/0299939), Linden et al. (2017/0354095), Rusanen et al. (2024/0268275), hereinafter Rusanen, and Nie et al. (2012/0246942) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Morimura et al. (EP 3,141,107).
Yoshihiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the control system is adapted to control the electric motor in response to information of an electric current supplied to the electric motor to determine the gripping position.
Morimura teaches a pruner having a control system adapted to control an electric motor in response to information of an electric current supplied to the electric motor to determine a gripping position (torque of the motor changing causing electric current changing). See Fig. 11. The control system in Morimura helps cutting blades of the pruner continue cutting or opening when encountering big branches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the control system in Yoshihiro a function of controlling the electric motor in response to information of an electric current supplied to the electric motor to determine a gripping position as taught by Morimura to prevent the cutting blades get stuck in a big branch during a cutting process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/092026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Yoshihiro, claim 1 calls for
the operating switch configured to stay in one of the first switch position, the second switch position, and the third switch position until entering another of the first switch position, the second switch position, and the third switch position.
Claim 1 does not teach any mechanism to facilitate the switch “stay” at any specific position. The switch in Yoshihiro stays at any specific position with the help of a finger. Therefore, Yoshihiro reads on the claim language.
The Applicant argues that Yoshihiro does not teach "the blades may be releasably locked in said position unless the user releases/deactivates the operating switch 501 so the blades return to the blades-open position." See present application, para. [0037]. The present Application further discloses that "[t]he operating switch may [] stay in the first actuation mode even when the user no longer touches the operating switch 501," which "helps the user to concentrate on operating the tree pruner and bring the cut branch safely down." See present application, para. [0039].” Claim 1 does not have this language. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s that Yoshihiro teaches away from replacing its trigger with other types of triggers, Yoshihiro does not explicitly state that there is no other type of switch to be used in his device. Furthermore, one skilled in the art is one of creativity person and has his own preferences. If one likes the blade of Yoshihiro and the switch of Nie or Rusanen, he would replace the switch in Yoshihiro with the switch of Nie or Rusanen.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Nie, claim 1 calls for a switch for switching blade opening widths. Element 9 is a switch for switching blade opening widths. Elements (81, 82) are actuator for opening the blades to a specific width as set forth by switch 9. Therefore, Nie reads on the claimed language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A switch for a shear of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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