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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 10. The Examiner acknowledges the addition of claims 15-19.
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. While the present drawings (see Fig. 3, for example), illustrate a portion of the front handle defining an interior space, the drawings do not illustrate the entirety of the length of the front handle defining an interior space. In Fig. 3, for example, the interior space is not explicitly illustrated as extending through further side section ‘34’. Therefore, the interior space extending along an entire length of the front handle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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(a)
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 1-19 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 claim 1, the claim states “wherein the interior space extends along an entire length of the front handle” in line 20 of the claim. The interior space extending along the entire length of the front handle has not been previously disclosed by the instant disclosure. Specifically, the specification does not state that the interior space extends along a specific length and instead states that it is enclosed by wall (P. 0008), that the interior space is part of the side section of the handle (P. 0009), the wall encloses the interior space (P. 0032), the wall of the front handle comprises an inside facing the interior space and an outside facing away from the interior space (P. 0032), and that the connection cables run from the interior space at the opening 8 to one end of the handle (P. 0035). The drawings show a single partial cutaway view showing the interior space (Fig. 3, 10) extending along a partial length of the handle. As such, the disclosure as originally filed does not support the interior space extending along the entire length of the front handle and instead only supports the interior space extending along a portion of the front handle, specifically between an opening and one end of the handle as shown in Fig. 3 of the instant drawings and disclosed in P. 0035 of the instant specification. Furthermore, this feature was not recited in the claims as originally filed. As such, the amended limitation drawn to the interior space extending along an entire length of the front handle is considered new matter.
Regarding claims 2-19, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2017/0165863 A1), hereafter known as Wolf, in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A), and Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), as evidenced by Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wolf teaches a hand-carried work apparatus (Wolf, Fig. 1-18), comprising:
a housing (Wolf, Fig. 1, 2), wherein the housing has
a top side (Wolf, Fig. 1, 47),
a bottom side (Wolf, Fig. 1, 48),
two longitudinal sides (Wolf, Figs. 1 and 4-5, 96 and 97), including
a first longitudinal side (Wolf, Fig. 1, 96), and
a second longitudinal side (Wolf, Figs. 4 and 5, 97),
wherein the top side and the bottom side are connected to one another via the two longitudinal sides (Wolf, Fig. 1 and 4-5, 47, 48, 96, and 97);
a drive motor (Wolf, Fig. 1-3, 7) arranged in the housing (Wolf, Fig. 1, 7), wherein the drive motor drives a tool (Wolf, P. 0038, Fig. 1, 5 and 6) arranged at a front end of the housing (Wolf, P. 0039);
a front handle (Wolf, Fig. 1, 4, and 17-18, 4); and
a rear handle (Wolf, Fig. 1, 4, 7-9, and 14-15, 3),
wherein the front handle is a handlebar and has a transverse section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) below) extending along the top side of the housing and a side section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) below) extending along one of the two longitudinal sides of the housing,
wherein the front handle has a wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 18 (Wolf) below) and an interior space (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 18 (Wolf) below) enclosed by the wall,
wherein the wall of the front handle comprises an inside (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 18 (Wolf) below) facing the interior space and an outside facing away from the interior space (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 18 (Wolf) below),
wherein a first electrical functional element (Wolf, Figs. 2 and 17, 28 and 29) is arranged in the housing,
wherein a second electrical functional element (Wolf, Fig. 17, 61) is arranged on the front handle,
wherein the first electrical functional element is connected to the second electrical functional element via at least one connecting cable (Wolf, Fig. 17, 55).
Wolf does not teach wherein a second electrical functional element is arranged on the outside of the front handle and wherein the interior space extends along an entire length of the front handle, and wherein the at least one connecting cable is arranged at least partially in the interior space of the front handle in an area of the side section of the front handle.
Wolf does not specifically disclose the location to where the second electrical functional element is arranged.
Nagashima teaches a chain saw (Nagashima, Fig. 1) with a handle (Nagashima, Fig. 1-2, 2) wherein a second electrical functional element (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 10) is between the wall of the handle and a grip (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 6 and 7). This arrangement is advantageous for several reasons. First, the grip is able to hold the electrical functional element in place without the need of an adhesive, while also allowing the electrical functional element to be easily attached and detached, if repair needed (Nagashima, Col. 1, lines 56-61). Second, providing the electrical functional element external to the handle structure provides faster and more efficient as the element does not need to conduct heat through the handle first. Further, this modification is a mere re-arrangement of parts, in particular by selecting a position of the electrical function element. Nagashima teaches a second electrical functional element sandwiched between a handle and a grip. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the second electrical functional element of Wolf such that it was on the outside of the handle as such a modification would not alter the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Brenzen teaches a front handle (Brenzen, Fig. 1-2, 12) with an interior space (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) below) that extends along an entire length of the front handle through which a connecting cable (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 53).
Brenzen further teaches a front handle (Brenzen, Fig. 1-2, 12) wherein the at least one connecting cable (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 53) is arranged at least partially in the interior space of the front handle in an area of the side section of the front handle through an opening in the wall of the front handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) below). Further, it is known in the art protecting cables on power tool is a concern (see Jess, P. 0013) and that routing a cable in an interior space of a handle aids affords protection to the cable (Jesse, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the front handle taught by Wolf such that front handle had an interior space that extended along the entire length of the front handle as taught by Brenzen such that the connecting cable was arranged at least partially in the interior space of the front handle in an area of the side section of the front handle as further taught by Brenzen. This modification is advantageous to aid in protecting the cable from damage, which is a known concern in view of the teachings of Jesse.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first electrical functional element (Wolf, Fig. 2 and 17, 28) is an energy source for supplying the second electrical functional element with electrical current (Wolf, P. 0016 and 0080).
Regarding claim 6, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an opening (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above) is provided on the wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above) of the front handle to the second electrical functional element (Wolf, Fig. 17, 61), wherein the opening extends from the outside of the wall to the inside of the wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above), wherein the at least one connecting cable (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 53) runs from the outside of the wall through the opening into the interior space of the front handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above).
Regarding claim 8, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the front handle has an approximately horizontally extending holding section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above), and wherein the opening of the wall is provided outside the holding section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above).
Regarding claim 9, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the transverse section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above) and the side section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above) of the front handle (Wolf, Fig. 1, 4, and 17-18, 4) are connected to one another via a curved connecting section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above), and wherein the opening (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above) is provided in the side section adjacent to the connecting section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above).
Regarding claim 15, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one connecting cable (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 53) is arranged in the interior space (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above) of the front handle (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 12) in an area where the side section (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 13) of the front handle is mounted to the housing (Brenzen, Col. 4, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 16, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 18 (Wolf) above) is a tube wall (Wolf, P. 0038) and configured to provide structural support for holding the work apparatus during normal operation (Wolf, P. 0037), and wherein the interior space is hollow (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above).
Regarding claim 17, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the front handle (Wolf, Fig. 1, 4, and 17-18, 4) is fastened to a bottom side of the housing at a first end (Wolf, P. 0042) and fastened to a side section of the housing at a second end (Wolf, Fig. 4-5, 12), and wherein the at least one connecting cable (Brenzen, Fig. 2, 53) extends into the interior space (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above) through the second end of the front handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Brenzen) above).
Regarding claim 18, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the front handle (Wolf, Fig. 1, 4, and 17-18, 4) includes a cover (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above), and wherein the cover encases a holding section of the front handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Wolf) above).
Wolf in view of Nagashima and Brenzen as modified does not teach wherein the second electrical functional element is arranged between the cover and the wall.
Nagashima further teaches an electrical functional element (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 10) arranged between a cover (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 7) and a wall (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 6). This arrangement is advantageous as it allows for the electrical functional element to be quickly and easily attached and detached for repair or replacement (Nagashima, Col. 1, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen and Jesse such that the second electrical functional element was arranged between the cover and the wall as taught in by Nagashima as doing so allows for the electrical functional element to be quickly attached and detached from the handle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A) and Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaensch (US 2005/0055832 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second electrical functional element (Wolf, Fig. 17, 61) is a heating device (Wolf, P. 0080 and 0081).
Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse does not teach wherein the second electrical functional element is a heating foil.
Jaensch teaches a chain saw (Jaensch, Fig. 1, 1) wherein a second electrical functional element (Jaensch, Fig. 1, 21) is a heating foil (Jaensch, P. 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to substitute the second electrical functional element or heating device of Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse with the heating foil as taught by Jaensch as it is known in the art of chain saws for both the heating device of Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse and the heating foil of Jaensch to perform the same function of heating a front handle (see MPEP 2144.06(II)).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A), Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), and Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riggenmann et al. (US 2022/0297252 A1), hereafter known as Riggenmann.
Regarding claim 3, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1.
Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse does not teach wherein the second electrical functional element is a sensor.
Riggenmann teaches a hand-carried work apparatus (Riggenmann, Fig. 1-13, 72a-72j) wherein the second electrical functional element (Riggenmann, Fig. 4, 44b) is a sensor (Riggenmann, P. 0097). Such electrical functional elements increase the safety of the device during use (Riggenmann, P. 0005 and 0017).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modifying the second electrical functional element taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse to be a sensor as taught by Riggenmann to enhance the safety of device during operation.
Regarding claim 5, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse in further view of Riggenmann teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first electrical functional element (Wolf, Fig. 2 and 17, 29) is a control unit for processing data signals (Wolf, P. 0053).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A), Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), and Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Aiyama et al. (US 5,675,896 A), hereafter known as Aiyama.
Regarding claim 7, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 6.
Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse does not teach wherein the opening is provided with a grommet as edge protection.
Aiyama teaches a hand-carried work apparatus (Aiyama, Fig. 1-3, 10) wherein an opening is provided with a grommet (Aiyama, Fig. 1 and 3, 53). Such grommets provide the benefit of separating the wire from the housing or handle to prevent damage to the wires but also help to keep debris or water from entering the housing or handle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the device of Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse to include a grommet as taught by Aiyama as it is well known in the art of hand tool to provide grommets for wires not only to provide protection from a sharp edge of a housing or handle but to also help keep debris or water from entering the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A), Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), and Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siede et al. (US 4,964,217 A), hereafter known as Siede.
Regarding claim 10, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1.
Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse as modified does not teach wherein the front handle is made of aluminum or plastic.
Siede teaches a front handle (Siede, Fig. 1-5, 1) for a hand-carried work apparatus (Siede, Col. 1, lines 46-48) wherein the front handle is made of aluminum (Siede, Col. 1, lines 12-14) or plastic (Siede, Col. 2, lines 40-64). Forming the handle of aluminum allows for the handle to be attached via bolts while forming the handle of plastic allows for the handle to be integrally formed with other parts of the device (Siede, Col. 1 line 54 – Col. 2 line 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the front handle taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse such that the handle was made of aluminum or plastic as taught by Siede as doing so allows the handle to be connected to the device using bolts or to allow the handle to be integrally formed with other components of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A) and Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), and Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 3,844,360 A), hereafter known as Green.
Regarding claim 11, Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 1.
Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse does not teach wherein the work apparatus comprises a handle tube insert for fastening the front handle to the housing of the work apparatus, and wherein the handle tube insert is arranged in the interior space of the handle at one end of the front handle. The handles taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse attach directly to the housing instead.
Green teaches a hand-carried work apparatus (Green, Fig. 1-4, 1) wherein the work apparatus comprises a handle tube insert (Green, Fig. 4, 18) for fastening the front handle (Green, Fig. 4, 15) to the housing (Green, Fig. 4, 2) of the work apparatus, and wherein the handle tube insert (Green, Fig. 4, 18) is arranged in the interior space of the handle (Green, Fig. 4, 15 and 18) at one end of the front handle. Such structure helps to provide additional rigidity to the handle in the attachment location that helps to resist deformation that may be caused by overtightening the attachment screws.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse to feature a handle tube insert as taught by Green as an alternative attachment for the front handle as doing so allows provides the front handle with additional rigidity to resist deformation due to overtightening.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2017/0165863 A1) in view of Nagashima (US 4,654,970 A), Brenzen (US 3,131,277 A), and Jesse (US 2008/0236986 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Linsbauer et al. (US 5,623,999 A), hereafter known as Linsbauer.
Regarding claim 19, Wolf in view of Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse teaches the hand-carried work apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the cover (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 7) serves to fix the second electrical functional element (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 10, Col. 1, lines 56-65) on the front handle (Nagashima, Fig. 2, 6).
Wolf in view of Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse does not teach wherein the cover is made of plastic. Nagashima instead teaches a cover made of rubber.
Linsbauer teaches a front handle (Linsbauer, Fig. 1, 2) where the cover (Linsbauer, Fig. 1, 3) is made of a plastic or rubber material (Linsbauer, Col. 2, lines 37-42).
In the same field of hand-carried work apparatus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the front handle cover taught by Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse by designating the cover be made of a plastic material as taught by Linsbauer since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Here since Nagashima shows that it is well known in the art to select a deformable material like rubber for covers and Linsbuaer shows that plastic is a known alternative to rubber, the designation of a plastic material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Claims not subject to Prior Art Rejections
Rational for claims not rejected by prior art is as follows:
Regarding claim 12, a prior art rejection for the claim is not included as the prior art of record does not teach a handle tube insert for guiding the connecting cable. The claim is, however, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to its dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, a prior art rejection for the claim is not included as the prior art of record does not teach a handle tube insert featuring a cable fixation for clamping the at least one connecting cable. While the handle tube insert taught by Green teaches a handle tube insert according to claim 11 the handle tube insert of Green does not teach a cable fixation or clamping at least one connecting cable. Further it should be appreciated that neither Wolf or Brenzen teach the connecting cable entering the handle in a section of the handle that connects to the house. So while Nishikimi (US 20100315804 A1) shows a handle tube insert (Nishikimi, Fig. 3c, 26s) in a handle (Nishikimi, Fig. 2, 15) for clamping at least one connecting cable (Nishikimi, Fig. 3c, 40, P. 0044) modifying Wolf in view of Nagashima, Brenzen, and Jesse in further view of Nishikimi would require the relocation of the connecting cable which there is no motivation for such a modification. The claim is, however, still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to its dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, a prior art rejection for the claim is not included as the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. However, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to its dependency on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 is overcome by the amendment to claim 1 and is thus allowable. The Examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1 overcome the rejection of record but as the applicant has amended the claim the Examiner has updated the rejection of record to account for the amended subject matter. Additionally, the amendment to claim 1 may be new matter as the instant disclosure does not state or show the interior space extending along the entire length of the front handle. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obvious type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 does not teach a connecting cable that is arranged at least partially in the interior space of the front handle in an area of the side section of the front handle. The Examiner agrees, however as the applicant has amended the claim an updated prior art rejection is included above with prior art showing a connecting cable that is arranged at least partially in the interior space of the front handle in an area of the side section of the front handle. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724