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 .
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. Therefore, the circular groove (claim 1) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: groove 13 as described in paragraphs [0015], [0022] and e.g., Fig. 2, does not define a circular groove. 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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "a circular groove disposed adjacent to the handle" in line 5, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what defines the circular groove. Specification and drawings, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0022] and Figs. 3, 6, 7 point to what may appear to be at least a partial prereferral groove around the around the parameter of the handle (13 containing 131, Fig. 3), but it does not define “a circular groove disposed adjacent to the handle”. Applicant is required to clarify without adding new matter.
Rejection under 112 (a) or 112, 1st paragraph for insufficient disclosure is not applied at this time, since it appears that the claim deficiencies are of clarity and not of enablement.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (5,640,741) in view of Pytlewski (6,604,256) .
Yano meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a handle structure for a garden tool at least capable of, the handle structure comprising: a handle 4, and a padding member 1, wherein:
PNG
media_image2.png
350
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the handle 4 has an accepting slot defined by half members 4a, 4b and a plurality of binding apertures 4g, one end of each binding aperture having a rim at a circular edge 4c in the accepting slot, the circular edge further having a guiding slope curved lip 4f1, 4f2 disposed adjacent to the handle 4; and
the padding member 1 is configured to provide a resilient texture @2, the padding member having a plurality of positioning columns 3c corresponding to the binding apertures 4c such that the padding member 1 overlappable and securable onto the handle Fig. 1, each positioning column 3c being insertable into a respective binding aperture 4g and each positioning column 3c being hollow @26, curved lip, when the positioning columns 3c are inserted in the binding apertures 4g, an end of each positioning column @25 can pass the respective rim 4c 3b1, 3b2 of the padding member is embeddable in the circular groove 4f1, except for the guiding slop to be expanding outwards, the positioning column being hollow with an engaging groove disposed adjacent to an end of each positioning column and for an end of each positioning column to pass the respective rim and engage with the rim via the engaging
PNG
media_image3.png
497
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
groove.
Pytlewski teaches a grout float assembly including a blade 19 and a pair of core sections 13a, 13b defining a handle 12 with interlocking male tapered bosses 30 and female receptacles 31 joining the core sections; wherein each positioning column 30 being insertable into a respective binding aperture 31 and each positioning column 30 32 disposed adjacent to an end 47
PNG
media_image4.png
345
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of each positioning column 30; wherein with the guiding slope tapered bosses and tapered receptacles, Abstract, when the positioning columns 30 are inserted in the binding apertures 31, an end of each positioning column 47 can pass the respective rim Fig. 3 with tapered entrance 05:4-6 and engage with the rim via the engaging groove 32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Yano with the bosses and receptacles as taught by Pytlewski for securely and permanently bind the padding member to the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Yano modified by Pytlewski) meets the limitations, i.e., the handle structure for a garden tool as claimed in claim t, wherein the garden tool is a gardening sprayer at least capable of coupling the padding to a sprayer Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the handle structure for a garden tool as claimed in claim 1, wherein the garden tool is a gardening shears at least capable of coupling the padding to an shears, e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8. It is noted that although Yano is directed to a power tool, the padding and shell as disclosed, e.g., Figs. 7 (Prior Art column 1, line 11) and 8, are considered at least capable of being applied to a pair of pliers, scissors, garden tools having handle shells of similar shapes.
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the handle structure for a garden tool as claimed in claim 1, except for the handle to be made of metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to make the handle of metal for its strength and durability, 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.
PNG
media_image5.png
356
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
357
371
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the handle structure for a garden tool as claimed in claim 1,the circular peripheral groove of the handle to comprise a plurality of engaging apertures receiving engaging pieces 3b2, not shown in Fig. 1, and the padding member 1 comprises a plurality of engaging blocks 3b2 Fig. 2, for correspondingly engaging with the engaging apertures.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, except for each engaging aperture to be a through hole. However, as disclosed in the background of the invention and Figs. 7 and 8, tool handles having edge groove around the handle at 101a to comprise a plurality of engaging apertures 101b and the padding member 102 comprises a plurality
PNG
media_image7.png
268
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of engaging blocks 102b, Fig. 8, for correspondingly engaging with the engaging apertures and it seems due to the tip of the engaging pieces 102b, the apertures 101b are through holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the apertures as through holes as suggested by Fig. 8, in adapting the apertures for covers having engaging tabs and since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954).
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the handle structure of a garden tool as claimed in claim 5, wherein each engaging aperture 65 is a concavity groove.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Takeshima and Wang are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax 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.
/Hadi Shakeri/
October 17, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723