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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because There are 35 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (for examples, the reference “3012” shows 2 different portions of a wheel in figure 35; the reference “1104” points to 2 different parts in figure 32; the reference “1016” points to 2 different parts in figure 24…). Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures. 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.
Specification
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “may” in lines 4-9 is used, which makes it confusing whether the plurality of trimmer head assemblies or the single trimmer head assembly in the invention or not.
Also, various embodiments “the plurality of trimmer head assemblies and a single head assembly with a handle for manual operation” in the last few lines is confusing because it appears to contain multiple embodiments and is not directed to the preferred embodiment since there is only one drive motor recited in line 2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (35 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. For an example, the reference “1066” is discussed in Para. 300, but it is not in figures.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7-21, 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2 “…trimmer head frame portion” should read --…a trimmer head frame portion--
Claim 1, line 2, the “:” should be comas “,”.
Claim 1, lines 6, 8, “…trimmer head assembly second wheel…” should read --…the trimmer head assembly second wheel…”.
Claim 1, Applicant is requested to use the same terminology throughout the claim since claim 1, line 3 recites “a first trimmer head assembly wheel” and later line 7 recites “the trimmer head assembly first wheel”.
Claim 1, line 10, the “.” should be deleted. Claim 2, the last paragraph has the same issue of period in the middle of the paragraph that needs to remove.
There are many issues of punctuations; Applicant is requested to correct the punctuations used in all claims (see the discussions below).
Claim 2, line 6 “secund” should read –second—
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-3, 7-21, 24-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 6 “each trimmer head assembly second wheel” is unclear since claim 1 recites only one trimmer head assembly second wheel. Thus, the language “each” is confusing. Also, there is a confusion since the punctuations used are NOT proper, for examples, line 7, why the comas between the “head” and “assembly” and the “:” used in line 8.
Applicant is requested to correct the punctuations used in all claims.
Claim 2, line 9, the language “each” is unclear since claim 2, line 4 recites only one magnet bearing.
Claim 3, “a plurality of trimmer head assemblies” is unclear whether it refers to the trimmer head assembly in claim 1 further including sub-assemblies as “a plurality of trimmer head assemblies” or additional plurality of trimmer head assemblies or a multiple trimmer head assemblies of claim 1 (which means each assembly includes all same features of the trimmer head assembly of claim 1).
Claim 3, the two last paragraphs are unclear. First, the “plurality of trimmer heads” is unclear whether it refers the plurality of trimmer head assemblies or not and the trimmer head first and second wheels are unclear whether they refer the trimmer head assembly first and second wheels or not. Second, the language “ai” is a typo or means something else.
Claim 9 has the same issue of “plurality of trimmer heads” and the language “am” is unclear whether it is a typo or means something else.
Claim 10, “an equal group of trimmer heads” is unclear whether it refers to the plurality of trimmer head assemblies or additional equal group of trimmer heads.
Claim 13, “a plurality of drum modules” is unclear whether it refers to the drum module in claim 3 further including sub-assemblies as “a plurality of drum modules” or additional plurality of drum modules or a multiple drum modules of claim 3 (which means each modules includes all same features of the drum module of claim 3).
Claim 15 “the drive motors” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the motors refer new motors or inherently refer to motors of the plurality of trimmer head assemblies (see the issue of claim 3 above). Claims 16-18 have the same issues of claim 15 above.
Claim 17 “a first second and third drum module” (since it is missing punctuation, it is unclear what the first, second, and third means in this drum module) is unclear whether it is only one drum module or three drum modules (first, second, and third drum modules) or one drum module including first, second, and third portions of the drum module. Also, the language “consisting of” is unclear since each drum module has many structures, not only drum module by itself.
Claim 19 is run-on sentence and worded throughout making it confusion what is actually being claimed. Also, the language “consisting of” is unclear since each drum module distribution pattern has many structures, not only pattern by itself.
Claims 20-21, “an equal number of trimmer heads” is unclear whether it refers to the plurality of trimmer head assemblies or additional equal number of trimmer heads.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3, 7-21, 24-25 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 18/028,430 (reference application). The languages of claims of both applications are identical (there is a minor typo issue that addresses above). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuchs (US 3906629).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Fuchs shows a trimming apparatus (Figures 1 and 4), comprising a trimmer head assembly (Figure 4) and a trimmer head frame portion (14),
the trimmer head assembly including a trimmer head assembly first wheel (12) having a first trimmer head assembly rotational axis (a horizontal rotation axis, Figure 4) and a first trammer head assembly wheel perimeter surface (where the reference “34”, Figure 4), a trimmer head assembly second wheel (13, Figure 4) having a trimmer head, assembly second rotation axis (a vertical rotation axis, Figure 4) and
the trimmer head assembly second wheel perimeter surface (where the reference 35 is in Figure 4), a trimmer head assembly drive motor (3, Figure 1) coupled to the trimmer head assembly first wheel, the trimmer head assembly first wheel and the trimmer head assembly second wheel rotationally mounted within the trimmer head assembly frame portion (Figures 1 and 4), the trimmer head assembly first and second wheels in frictional contact with each other at a location on their respective perimeter surfaces (Figure 4), wherein the trimmer head assembly first and second rotational axes define a non-zero trimmer head assembly camber angle (90 degrees angle, Figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-21, 24-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2 is free of prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest to have unique structures of a trimmer head second wheel retaining portion including opposed first and second walls and a magnetic bearing assembly to support the trimmer second wheel within the second wheel retaining portion between the retaining portion first and second walls; the trimmer head assembly second wheel further comprising first and second wheel faces on opposite sides of the trimmer head, assembly second wheel, the first and second wheel faces including a first and second bearing race, respectively, and, the magnetic bearing assembly comprising: first and second magnetic bearing retaining rings retained within the corresponding first and second bearing races, and first and second outer magnets retained against the retaining portion first and second wails opposed, to the respective first and second magnetic bearing retaining rings, each of the first and second magnetic bearing retaining rings including magnetic material defining identical retaining ring magnetic polarities, and each of the first and second outer magnets including magnetic material defining identical outer magnet magnetic polarities; wherein the first and second magnetic bearing retaining rings are oriented with their retaining ring magnetic polarities in repulsion to each other. and the first and second outer magnets are oriented with their outer magnet magnetic polarities in repulsion to each other and in repulsion to their corresponding first and. second magnetic bearing retaining ring magnetic polarities as set forth in claim 2 (emphasis added).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as best understood, claim 3 is free of prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest to have a plurality of trimmer head assemblies (each head assembly as stated in claim 1) on a drum module with each trimmer head first and second wheels of the trimmer head assemblies partially projecting past the drum module frame interior surface zero depth into the drum module interior volume to a trimmer head depth, the direction of movement of the trimmer first wheel and trimmer second wheel ai the frictional contact location relative to the zero depth defines the pull angle and the direction of movement of the trimmer first wheel and trimmer second wheel at the frictional contact location relative to the central longitudinal axis defining the impulse angle, with combination other limitations as stated in claim 3 (emphasis added).
There are many arts show two cutting wheels are angular to each other, for an example, Paul (US 2014/0262381) shows two wheels angular to each other, not physical in contact each other (Figure 3); there are many arts of can openers that have two wheels angular to each other, for an example, Robert (US 3787967), but it does not discuss any magnet bearing and drum module (a plurality of head assemblies on the drum module).
Therefore, there appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 7-21, 24-25 are considered to contain allowable subject matter because they are being dependent from the claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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 at (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 11/12/2025