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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-23 are pending, claims 21-23 are new and claims 1 and 10 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites, “wherein the blade assembly further comprises a spacer”. However, the spacer was already set forth in claim 1, line, 13. It is unclear whether this is a second spacer, or if the Applicant intended for claim 21 to depend from claim 20?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 9-10, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP3117504, as evidenced by www.periodic-table.org/Magnesium-density/ and in view of Stickler et al. (U.S. Patent 11,077,644), herein referred to as Stickler and as further evidenced by (https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymers-cfrp/), herein referred to as Thomas and http://jotaintl.com/about-us/academy/glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer/ (herein referred to as Jota).
In regards to claim 1 and 15-20, JP discloses a hedge trimmer (fig. 5), comprising: a housing (26) formed with an accommodation space (internal space); a blade assembly (12/13) comprising a first blade (12) and a second blade (13) and a blade support (15) for supporting the first blade (12) and the second blade (13), wherein the first blade and the second blade reciprocate along a direction of a first straight line (along the length of the blades) and the blade support (15) extends along the direction of the first straight line; a transmission mechanism (between the engine 25 and the blades 12/13) for driving the blade assembly to move; and a motor (25) coupled to the housing (26) and used for driving the transmission mechanism to move; wherein the blade support (15) comprises a mixture of carbon fiber material and glass fiber material, and the blade support has a density of greater than or equal to 1 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 2.2 g/cm3.(the guide bar is made of light metal such as aluminum or magnesium).
wherein the blade assembly further comprises a spacer (14) disposed between the second blade (13) and the blade support (15), and the first blade (12), the second blade (13), the spacer (14) and the blade support (15) are arranged from bottom to top.
JP discloses that the blade support (15) Is made from a light metal such as aluminum or magnesium, but does not disclose the highlight limitations concerning the density of the material, or that the material is a mixture of carbon fiber material and glass fiber material. However, it is known that magnesium possesses a density around 1.738 g/cm3 as evidenced by the periodic table of elements and that aluminum has a density around 2.7 g/cm3. However, a magnesium or aluminum formed blade support does not comprise a carbon fiber and a glass fiber material. Attention is further directed to the Stickler material system. Stickler discloses, that:
“Material systems may comprise aluminum, glass composite, and/or carbon composite layers. Such material systems may fall, for example, in the fiber metal laminate (“FML”) category. FMLs may exhibit specific advantages when compared to simple metal structures. Such advantages may include, for example, improved resistance to corrosion, fatigue, fire, and/or impact. In addition or in the alternative, such advantages may include, for example, specialized strength properties and/or reduced weight per a given volume.
(3) Many industries, such as the aerospace, automotive, and rail-transport industries, continually seek to push the boundaries of what has come before in material systems and methods of manufacturing material systems. Thus, there is a need for improved material systems and methods of manufacturing material systems.”
“In some examples, the material system may comprise: a first aluminum layer; a first glass composite layer adjacent to the first aluminum layer; and/or a first carbon composite layer adjacent to the first glass composite layer, and opposite to the first aluminum layer.” ( col. 1, lines 15-45)
Stickler discloses structural composite material systems comprising carbon composite and/or glass composite materials, and teaches that such systems provide advantages over metal structures, including reduced weight, improved corrosion resistance, enhanced fatigue resistance and improved structural performance. The selection of materials for structural member subject to bending and fatigue is a problem across industries. Accordingly, Sticker is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting an appropriate material for the blade support of JP.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the aluminum or magnesium blade support of JP with a composite material system comprising carbon fiber and glass fiber materials as taught by Stricker in order to obtain predictable structural advantages such as reduced weight, corrosion resistance, increased strength, and/or improved performance.
With respect to the claimed density limitations (greater than or equal to 1 g/cm^3 and less than 2.2 g/cm^3), attention is also directed to the Thomas and Jota websites which address both carbon fiber reinforced polymers and glass fiber reinforced polymers respectively. Thomas and Jota are cited as evidence of the typical densities of carbon and glass fiber reinforced polymers, which reflect well established material properties in the art. These reference as not relied upon as prior art to supply a missing structural limitation, but rather as documentary evidence of well-known material properties of carbon and glass fiber reinforced composite materials.
Thomas provides evidence that typical densities for carbon fiber reinforced polymers are 1.5-1.7 g/ cm^3, while Jota provides evidence that typical densities for glass fiber reinforced polymers are 1.5-2.0 g/ cm^3. Both of these known composite materials individually fall entirely within Applicant’s claimed density of 1-2.2 g/cm^3. A composite material comprising both carbon fiber and glass fiber reinforced polymer would reasonably be expected to have a density within the same general range as these known materials. Therefore, the claimed density limitations represent a predictable result of selecting known carbon and glass fiber reinforced composite materials and does not meaningfully distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, selection of a composite material system for weight reduction necessarily involves selecting materials having lower density than the base metal, and such optimization of known material properties would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 9, the modified device of JP discloses the blade assembly comprises a spacer (14) between the second blade (13) and the blade support (15)
In regards to claim 10, the modified device of JP discloses wherein the blade support (15) has a through hole (fig. 6), a hole distance of the through hole in a radial direction of the blade assembly is defined as a first diameter, the first blade (12) has a first opening and the second blade (13) has a second opening, an opening distance of the first opening in the radial direction of the blade assembly is a first length, an opening distance of the second opening in the radial direction of the blade assembly is a second length, the first length and the second length are greater than the first diameter, and the blade assembly further comprises a fastener (18) passing through the first opening, the second opening, and the through hole (see fig. 6).
In regards to claim 21, the modified device of JP discloses wherein the blade assembly further comprises a spacer (14) disposed between the second blade and the blade support (15) and the first blade (12) and the second blade (13), the spacer (14), and the blade support (15) are arranged from bottom to top.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP3117504, as evidenced by www.periodic-table.org/Magnesium-density/ and in view of Stickler et al. (U.S. Patent 11,077,644), herein referred to as Stickler and as further evidenced by (https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymers-cfrp/), herein referred to as Thomas and http://jotaintl.com/about-us/academy/glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer/ (herein referred to as Jota) and in further view of view of Sheffer al. (U.S. Patent 10,375,896).
In regards to claim 22, JP discloses hedge trimmer comprising: a housing formed with an accommodation space; a blade assembly comprising a first blade (12) and a second blade (13) and a blade support (15) for supporting the first blade (12) and the second blade (13), wherein the first blade and the second blade reciprocate along a direction of a first straight line and the blade support extends along the direction of the first straight line; a transmission mechanism (between the engine 25 and the blades 12/13) for driving the blade assembly to move; and a motor (25) coupled to the housing and used for driving the transmission mechanism to move; wherein the blade support (15) is made of a mixture of a carbon fiber material and a glass fiber material (as modified by Stickler) , and the blade support has a density of greater than or equal to 1.5 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 2.2 g/cm3 (as modified by Sticker and evidenced by Jota and Thomas) and wherein a length L of the blade support is greater than or equal to 750 mm and less than or equal to 850 mm, a width W of the blade support (15) is greater than or equal to 12 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm, and a thickness H of the blade support is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm.
It is noted that the pervious rejection and rationale applied to claim 1 also applied to claim 22 for the highlighted recitations concerning the blade support material and its density.
The modified device of JP further does not disclose the highlighted limitations of the dimensions of the blade support (15), including the recited length, width and thickness dimensions..
However, Sheffer (U.S. Patent 10,375,896) teaches that trimmer blade assemblies are manufactured in a wide range of lengths, including assembly lengths of 500-750mm, 750 mm, 800 mm and 1000 mm or greater (col. 10, lines 39-41). Sheffer further teaches blade components heights in a range of 4 mm to 50 mm (col. 13, lines 1-5). These teachings demonstrate that dimensional parameters of blade related structural components in hedge trimmers were known to vary depending upon design requirements.
JP already discloses a blade support of 1100mm. Adjusting that length to a size within the known and conventional ranged taught by Sheffer (including 750-800 mm) would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, particularly where Sheffer shows that smaller blade assemblies were commonly used in hedge trimmers. Moreover, blade support member 15 of JP is a structural component configured to support and stabilize the blade assembly. The width and thickness of such a structural member directly affects bending stiffness, torsional rigidity, weight, and vibrational characteristics of the assembly. Such parameters are recognized in the mechanical arts as affecting performance. Where a parameter is recognized as affecting performance, optimization of that parameter to obtain workable or a desirable result is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220F.2d 254 (CCPA 1955).
The claimed thickness range of 5-10 mm falls within the broader dimensional regime disclosed by Sheffer for blade related components (4-50 mm), evidencing that dimensions within their scale were known and conventional in hedge trimmer assemblies. The claimed width range likewise represents selection of a structural dimension sufficient to provide structural rigidity and durability consistent with known blade assembly constructions.
Accordingly, selecting length, width and thickness values within known workable ranges to provide sufficient structural rigidity for the JP blade assembly would have been a matter of routine engineering design and optimization, resulting in predictable performance characteristics. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ237 (CCPA 1955).
The claims do not recite any structural relationship or functional limitation tied to the specific numeric values, nor is there evidence that the claimed dimensional ranges produce a new or unexpected result relative to conventional blade supports. Therefore, modifying JP to employ blade support dimensions within the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The same rejections apply to claims 7,8, and 11-14.
In regards to claim 23, the modified device of JP discloses wherein the blade support (15) has a shape of a rectangular block (fig. 6) and has a plurality of through holes (for screws 18).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP3117504, as evidenced by www.periodic-table.org/Magnesium-density/ and in view of Stickler et al. (U.S. Patent 11,077,644), herein referred to as Stickler. In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Gilbert discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the hardness of the material and therefore does not disclose that the hardness is between 7 and 15 HW. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the properties of the material system or to selected a different material for the various layers to have arrived at the desired hardness, 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. /n re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP3117504, as evidenced by www.periodic-table.org/Magnesium-density/ and in view of Stickler et al. (U.S. Patent 11,077,644), herein referred to as Stickler and as further evidenced by (https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymers-cfrp/), herein referred to as Thomas and http://jotaintl.com/about-us/academy/glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer/ (herein referred to as Jota).
The modified device of JP does not specify the mass ratio of the carbon fiber material to the glass fiber material in the blade support such that the ratio of 0.5 to 2 or 1, per claim 6, is expressly stated. Stickler sets forth that “Aluminum layer 102A, glass composite layer 104A, and carbon composite layer 106A may have the same or different thicknesses. (col. 4, lines 57-60). Thereby it is understood that the mass of the carbon fiber layer and the glass fiber layer can be changed to accommodate the needed properties of the formed structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the various layers in a thickness and mass as needed in order to minimize the weight of the blade support while maintaining the needed strength to support the blades during cutting, especially as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Applicant may contend that there is no motivation to combine JP with Stickler because Sticker is directed to aerospace and automotive components systems rather than hedge trimmers. This argument is not persuasive.
The motivations to combine need not arise from the same field of endeavor. A reference is analogous if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed. JP discloses a blade support that is a structural member subject to bending and fatigue during operation. Stickler teaches structural composite material systems designed to improve weight reduction, fatigue resistance, corrosion resistance and structural performance relative to the metal structures. The selection of materials for load bearing structural members subject to bending and fatigue is a general engineering problem not limited to any particular industry.
Sticker expressly teaches that carbon and glass fiber composite systems provide advantages over metal structures including reduced weight and improved fatigue resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the structural performance or reduce the weight of JPs blade support would have been motivated to apply known composite material systems that provide such predictable benefits.
The combination does not require hindsight reconstruction, but rather represents the application of known structural composite materials to a known structural component to obtain the predictable advantages identified in the prior art. Substituting one known structural material for another to achieve recognized benefits is consistent with established obvious principals under KSR. Accordingly, the combination of JP and Sticker is supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Applicant also argues that because Sheffer discloses board dimensional ranges that there is no motivation to select the narrower claimed ranges and therefore the claimed dimensions would not have been obvious. This argument is also unpersuasive. Sheffer teaches blades assembly lengths ranging from 500 to 1000mm or greater and blade component heights ranging from 4 to 50 mm. These disclosures demonstrate the dimensional parameters of blade related structural components were recognized in the art as variables depending on design requirements.
The fact that Sheffer discloses a broad range does not render selection of a narrower range within the disclosed range nonobvious. Where the prior art discloses a range that encompasses or overlaps the claimed range, the claimed range is presumed obvious absent a showing of criticality or expected results. See In re Perterson, 315F.3d 1325 (CCPA 1955). Here the claimed thickness range of 5-10 mm falls squarely within the 4-50 mm range disclosed by Sheffer. The claimed width and length likewise represent selection of a structural dimension sufficient to provide rigidity and durability for a blade support member, which is a recognized performance affecting parameter. Such section constitutes routine optimization of a results effective variable.
Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed narrower ranges are critical, nor has applicant demonstrated that the claimed values produce a new or unexpected result relative to dimensions within the broader range disclosed by Sheffer. In the absence of such evidence, selecting values within a known range to achieve predictable structural performance would have been within the ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the breath of Sheffer’s disclosed ranges does not negate motivation to select dimensions within those ranges, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724