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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The I.D.S.s have both been considered. The I.D.S. received 3-25-34 has references that have been lined through. These references have incorrect publication numbers as there needs to be 7 numbers after the slash. Applicant does not have to do anything as the Examiner has listed these references on the PTO-892.
Election/Restrictions
The Restriction Requirement has been withdrawn. All claims will be examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0035] line 8, the phrase “longitudinal direction 104” needs to be replaced with “transverse direction 104” or “longitudinal direction 103”.
It is unclear why paragraph [0037] does not utilize reference number 200 which is previously disclosed as a power unit.
Paragraph [0038] appears to be the only paragraph that discloses interfaces 128. In Figure 1, 128 points to one interface and in Figure 2, 128 points at a difference interface. The Figure 2 interface appears to be an important part that interacts with actuating member 170 before 170 connects to linkage 160. While 170 is not shown in Figure 2 and this interface is not labeled in Figure 1, 170 is shown interacting with this interface in Figure 1. Paragraph [0032] of the specification discloses the engagement between 170 and the 160. This disclosure needs to incorporate this interface as the direction of 170 is changed via this interface which allows for the linkage to be moved in the proper direction to move shaft 146. 170 extends in and moves in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction. Without movement in both directions, it is unclear how the 160 and 146 will move in the transverse direction to disengage the gears. It is recommended that this interface be labeled in Figure 1 with a different number than 128 (i.e. 128a) to prevent confusion with the interface that is labeled in Figure 1. Figure 2 would need to be amended to include the new label number as well.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards claim 1, the phrases “transverse direction” and “lateral direction” are unclear. The tool is 3-diemnsional and extends in all directions. Any of these infinite directions can represent the transverse and lateral directions. Further definition is needed. Claim 17 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “configured to receive a motive force” is unclear. What structure provides the motive force? Does the tool or an outside item provide this force? Is a motor required for the existence of a motive force? Claim 17 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “to selectively engage or disengage the tool head” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by engage or disengage as the tool head never disengages from itself and is always engaged. The members 110 and 120 are always engaged via pivot 112. The members may define an open position where cutting portions are separated and a closed position where cutting portions engage but there does not appear to be a structural setup allowing for the tool head to be considered disengaged. Claim 17 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1, the first gear, compound gear, shaft, and actuating member disclosures are unclear in light of the phrase “tool head configured to receive a motive force”. As written, the tool head is configured to receive the force in a way unrelated to the gears, shaft, and member which is not supported. Without the gears, shaft, and member, the tool head is not able to receive the force. Claim 17 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “movement of the actuating member along the longitudinal direction selectively engages or disengages the compound gear and the first gear” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for movement of 170 in longitudinal direction alone to allow for the gears to engage/disengage. As discussed in the specification objection directed at interface 128 above, 170 extends in the longitudinal direction 103 but also appears to extend through interface 128 (labeled in Figure 2) in the direction 104 that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction 103. The structure allowing for the gears to engage/disengage requires movement of the actuating member 170 in both the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction. The specification needs to acknowledge this structural setup as well.
With regards to claim 2, as written, the actuating member is coupled to the shaft and the actuating member is coupled to the linkage which is not supported. The actuating member is coupled to the shaft because the linkage is coupled to the actuating member and to the shaft. The claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 2, it is unclear what structure allows for the relationship between the linkage, the actuating member and the shaft to result in movement of the shaft along the transverse direction. As discussed above, the actuating member extends in the transverse direction via interface 128 (Fig. 2) in addition to extending in the longitudinal direction. Movement in the transverse direction does not appear to be possible without interface 128 (Fig. 2) and the actuating member extending in both directions. Claim 8 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 4, the “tool head” is unclear. At least a portion of the tool head is attached to the housing. The claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support. Claim 18 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 6, the phrase “at the shaft” is unclear. The term “at” does not require engagement which is not supported. The claim needs to disclose the spring engages the shaft. The claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support. Claim 19 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 9, the handle grip disclosure is unclear. As written, the actuating member moves (as disclosed in claim 1) but in a way unrelated to the articulation of the handle grip which is not supported. The handle grip engages the actuating member. The claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 10, claim 9 discloses a situation where the grip and the actuation member have no relationship which is not supported. Claim 10 then comes in and discloses a relationship which is confusing. Claim 9 needs to claim this relationship because there does not appear to be a situation where they are unrelated to each other.
With regards to claim 11, the engagement/disengagement between the compound gear and the first gear from claim 1 is unclear. Claim 11 needs to further define this relationship with the first gear and the second gear so it is clear the engagement/disengagement is between the first and second gears.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear what structure allows for the tool head to articulate when the compound gear is disengaged from the first gear? Claim 20 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase “articulate the tool head” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses “engage or disengage the tool head”. It is unclear if the “articulate the tool head” is the same or a different function than the “engage or disengage the tool head” of claim 1. As written, the tool head performs the two different functions which is not supported. Claim 20 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase “transmit energy” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses “to receive a motive force”. It is unclear if the energy is the same or a different force than the motive force of claim 1. As written, the tool head interacts with a motive force and separately with the energy which is not supported. Claim 20 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 12, the phrase “gear mesh arrangement” is unclear. It is unclear if this arrangement represents the same or a different relationship than the selectively coupled relationship between the first gear and the compound gear of claim 1. Also, what structure allows for the “gear mesh arrangement” to exist when the compound/second gear is disengaged from the first gear?
With regards to claim 14, the “fourth gear” disclosure is unclear. Claim 11 discloses “a plurality of gears”. It is unclear if the fourth gear is one of the “plurality of gears”. As written, the fourth gear is in addition to the plurality of gear which does not appear to be supported. Claim 14 needs to first disclose the plurality of gears including a fourth gear.
With regards to claim 15, the power unit generates to the motive force to selectively engage/disengage the tool head in a way that does not utilize the handle, the gears, the shaft, and the actuating member which is not supported. The unit does not have the ability to directly interact with the tool head.
Claim 16 depends from claims 1 and 15 and does not appear to further limit either claim as all of the claim 16 limitations appear to be in claim 1 and 15. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions are for this claim.
With regards to claim 17, it is unclear what structure allows for the gears to be in the first position and the second position without the actuating member interacting with interface 128 (Fig. 2). Claims 18 and 19 have the same issue with “movement along the transverse direction”.
With regards to claim 19, it is unclear if the housing is positively claimed or not. The housing is not comprised by the assembly and can be an outside structure. If the housing is positively claimed, all of the previously disclosed limitations that have a relationship with the housing need to be disclosed (see claim 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art Wason (2015/0224660) utilized in the European Search Report does not appear to read on independent claims 1 and 17 in that the shaft 30 extends through the compound gear 29 but the gear 29 is not affixed to the shaft 30. The gear 29 is axially movably mounted on the shaft 30 (paragraph [0029]) which is not an “affixed” relationship as required by claims 1 and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
26 February 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724