DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary amendment to the claim, filed 12/18/2025, has been entered.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 shows servo motor 115 on worm screw 116 in the upper right side. No servo motor is labeled adjacent the middle wormscrew 116. 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.
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 one or more joysticks as in claim 17 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 10 “a control unit” should be “the control unit” since a control unit is introduced earlier in the claim. Claim 1, line 11 “receiving’ should be “receive”.
Claim 9 “it” should be positively recited to avoid confusion.
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 1-17 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, line 3 recites “preferably two pairs of wheels 20 & 106”. It cannot be determined whether two pair of wheels 20 & 106 is required. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the two pair of wheels 20 & 106 are not required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inclination of said pillar 15" in 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It cannot be determined if the inclination of the pillar 15 was intended to recite the tilt of the pillar 15, or if this was intended to be an inclination such as experienced by the vehicle by an inclined ground surface (page 5: 4). It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended the inclination refer to the angle the pillar 15 is tilted.
Claim 1, line 14-15 recites “in particular periodically”. It cannot be determined if the term “periodically” is required. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that periodically is optional.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1, thus are also similarly refuted.
Claim 6 recites “a movement system 46”. However, a movement system 46 is introduced in claim 5, and two movement system 46s are presented in the disclosure. It cannot be determined if a new movement system 46 is required over the movement system 46 of claim 5, or if claim 6 was intending to refer to the movement system 46 of claim 5. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each inclination axis of the pillar 15 have a respective movement system 46 that includes the movement system 46 of claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "said control unit" and “said servomotor” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It cannot be determined how the control unit is associated with the hedge trimmer apparatus, and it cannot be determined which servomotor is being referred to. The specification recite multiple servomotors. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that claim 9 depends from claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US4577457 in view of Wilson US4174604 and Cohet FR2940746 (text reference will be to the Clarivate analytics translation provided with Cohet).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Grant teaches a mobile hedge trimmer apparatus (Figure 1) comprising:
- a first portion 10, said first portion 10 acting as a mobile base (wherein at least 30 provides a base) adapted to rest on a ground (as shown in Figure 1) and advance along a path (the direction to the left of Figure 1) and comprising a plate 30 (wherein column 3: 9-12 describes 30 as a platform “The lower end of the leg 26 on one side of the wheel 20 is connected to a support platform 30 to mount the drive means 18 thereon”, in which the term “platform” is the same as a plate, since it is planar) and at least two wheels 20 & 106,
- a second portion (segment supporting 16), said second portion comprising a pillar 15 (wherein a mast is the same as a pillar since they both are rigid, elongated, and vertically disposed) adapted to tilt on two axes perpendicular to each other (the first axis is about the pivot point shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 6:66-column 7:6. The second is the pivot point caused by steering handle 14 rotation. Figure 3 shows the rotation. This causes the mobile hedge trimmer to rotated about a circular path around a tree Column 2: 50-59. The entire mobile hedge trimmer thus tilts as shown in Figure 2 on the incline about vertical axis, which is perpendicular to the pivot point that extends out of the page of Figure 2), said pillar 15 comprising a second cutting blade 54 (wherein at least one such cutting blade 54 is selected), said second cutting blade 54 being integral with said pillar 15 (as shown in Figure 1, since blade 54 is attached to 15, thus is considered to be integral with the pillar).
Grant does not teach a first cutting blade being adapted to slide along said pillar 15; a control unit, and sensors connected to said control unit; wherein a control unit is adapted to adjust the inclination of said pillar 15 on said axes and/or the position of said first cutting blade along said pillar 15, receiving information from said sensors, wherein said sensors comprise at least one tool for measuring an inclination of the ground and/or of said pillar 15 and at least one movement sensor or advancement detector, wherein said control unit is adapted to receive information from said sensors repeatedly, in particular periodically, and to consequently adjust the inclination of said pillar 15 and/or the position of said first cutting blade along said pillar 15.
Grant, however, does teach an operator (as shown in Figure 1) that controls the mobile hedge trimmer, including tilting inclination (Column 4: 14-15 “The link 46 is adjustable so that the angle A.sub.3 can be changed”), speed (Column 6: 10-12 “ The engine speed is controlled by the operator through an appropriate throttle control 96 at one of the hand grips 41 on the handlebar 40”), and direction (Column 3: 59-60 “the operator can more easily keep the tree trimming apparatus moving around the tree at the desired circle diameter”) of the mobile hedge trimmer. The operator can sense the inclination of the apparatus (Column 7: 6-22 “The lateral spacing of the drive means 18 with respect to the tire 21 is selected so that the moment exerted on the apparatus 10 in the clockwise direction offsets the moment exerted on the apparatus 10 in the counter-clockwise direction when the wheel 20 is vertical. If the apparatus 10 is allowed to pivot in either direction away from the vertical as seen in FIG. 2, the effective moment arm of the weights W.sub.C and W.sub.D change so that the apparatus 10 tries to continue to pivot away from the vertical in the initial direction that the pivoting starts. This increases the force that the operator must manually offset through the handle means 14 to keep the trimming apparatus upright. As a result, the operator immediately knows when he lets the apparatus 10 pivot away from the vertical since the offsetting moment he must exert through the handle means 14 increases”, wherein the “operator immediately knows” is the sensed inclination).
Wilson teaches that it is known in the art for a mobile hedge trimmer (Figure 1) to have a first cutter 28 that is adapted to slide along (on 64, as described in Column 2: 43-45 “Thus, clockwise rotation of wheel 32 causes trimmer support platform 30 to traverse upwardly along slit 22 in tube 20”) a pillar 20 (wherein tubular 20 is considered a pillar since it is linear, rigid, and held in a generally vertical position). This provides an adjustable horizontal positions for trimming hedge tops (as described in Column 3: 8-9 “Rotation of trimmer cutting surface 50 between horizontal positions for trimming hedge tops”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s pillar to include Wilson’s first cutter that is adapted to slide along the pillar, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing adjustable horizontal cutting for trimming plant tops at the same time as trimming the plant sides.
Cohet teaches it is known for a hedge trimmer (Figure 1) to have a tilt sensor 29 (Page 7, claim 7 “a member (28) for pivoting the mast (11), such as an electric cylinder, is mounted between the mast (11) and the rolling frame (3) and whose operation is slaved to a signal provided by a tilt sensor (29) attached to the mast (11)”) to detect tilt for a pillar 11, and send the signal to a controller (control unit described in page 4: ¶2: 10-11 “in case of tilting of the frame 3 relative to the mower 2, the sensor 29 provides an electrical signal to an electronic control unit, not shown, controlling the actuator 28 so that it rotates the mast 11”), for control of tilt (such as provided by actuator 28, and as described in Cohet’s Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s hedge trimmer to include Cohet’s tilt sensor and controller with a reasonable expectation of success in providing control for the inclination or tilting for the pillar. Doing so would enable an electronic and automatic means for providing tilting.
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said sensors are comprised in said first portion 10 and are adapted to send information regarding an inclination of said plate on said axes and/or said pillar 15 on said axes.
Regarding claim 3, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said sensors are comprised in said second portion and are adapted to send information regarding an inclination of said pillar 15 on said axes.
Regarding claim 4, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, cutting parameters (such as speed, Grant: Column 6: 10-12 “The engine speed is controlled by the operator through an appropriate throttle control 96 at one of the hand grips 41 on the handlebar 40”) set by an operator from a human-machine interface (handle 14, throttle 96, and handle 84).
Grant does not teach said control unit is further adapted to receive the cutting parameters set by an operator from the human-machine interface.
Cohet teaches that it is known for the human-machine interface to provide electric controls to direct the operation for the trimmer (Page 6: ¶3: 10-15 “To control the hedge trimmer 12 in cutting mode of the hedge, there is provided a device allowing the driver to act remotely directly on the motor acceleration control of the hedge trimmer. This device may comprise an electric switch, such as a push button, on the mower, electrically controlling an electromagnet mounted on the hedge trimmer and acting directly on the acceleration control of the engine, the connection between the electric switch”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s human-machine interface to provide electric controls to direct operation fo the trimmer, such as the electric switches of Cohet, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing remote-capable trimmer control for safer trimmer operation.
Regarding claim 5, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said first portion 10 and said second portion are mechanically connected to each other by a movement system 46.
Regarding claim 6, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 5, comprising a movement system 46 and handle 14 (as described above) for each inclination axis of said pillar 15.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson of the combination teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said first cutting blade 28 is constrained to a runner 30 (wherein platform 30 moves along slit 22 in pillar 20, and moves blade 28, thus is considered a runner. Column 2: 42-47 “clockwise rotation of wheel 32 causes trimmer support platform 30 to traverse upwardly along slit 22 in tube 20. Counterclockwise rotation of hand crank 32 allows support platform 30 to drop downward along slit 22 of tube 20 ”), said runner being adapted to slide along said pillar 15 (as described above to provide the “upwardly” and “drop downward” movement).
Wilson does not teach the sliding is actuated by a motor. Instead, Wilson teaches a hand crank 32 (as described above). However, Grant teaches that it is known for a motor/engine 60 to provide rotary movement (Column 5: 3-5 “The drive means 18 also includes a cutter transmission system 65 to transmit power from the engine output shaft to the cutter heads 50”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination such that Wilson’s sliding is attached so that Grant’s motor provides the sliding, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing motorized actuation for easier raising and lowering for the first cutter as compared with an operator/driver- provided movement.
Regarding claim 11, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least a pair of wheels 20 & 106 is actuated by a motor 60 (wherein an engine and a motor are considered equivalent for providing mechanical motive forces).
Regarding claim 13, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said first portion 10 further comprises a handlebar 14 adapted to be operated by a user (as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Grant teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus according to claim 13, wherein said handlebar defines a traction direction (the above described cutting path around a tree) and/or a traction speed and/or a displacement direction of the apparatus (wherein the speed and direction are not necessarily required in this claim).
Regarding claim 15, Grant teaches the mobile apparatus according to claim 13, wherein said handlebar acts as a support point for the apparatus (wherein handlebar 14 includes 35 that extends downwardly to 100 and at least supports seat 108).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Wilson and Cohet as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Yuan, et al. CN205694490 text reference will be to the Clarivate analytics translation provided with Yuan, et al.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Grant teaches and a rod (46) connected at a first end to a slider (the connectin between lower right side of 46 and 31 shown in Figure 1) and constrained at a second end (wherein 46 is attached on the upper left side to 15) with said pillar (providing the above described tilting for 15).
The combination does not teach said movement system comprises a worm screw moved by a servomotor, a slider having a threaded cavity coupled with said worm screw and being adapted to run along said worm screw.
Yuan, et al. teaches a movement system comprises a worm screw 17 moved by a servomotor 11, a slider 14 having a threaded cavity (wherein 14 necessarily has a cavity to permit 14 to move along screw 17) coupled with said worm screw and being adapted to run along said worm screw (to the left and right of Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s movement system to attach Yuan, et al.’s worm screw, servomotor, and slider, to Grant’s rod to provide motorized adjustment for Grant’s pillar’s inclination, a reasonable expectation of success in providing motorized adjustment for the pillar’s inclination without requiring manual adjustment.
Regarding claim 8, Yuan, et al. teaches a control unit (the dynamic balance control module with an input-output interface described in Yuan, et al.’s claim 1) controls the actuation of said servomotor.
Regarding claim 9, (assuming claim 9 depends from claim 7 as discussed above), the combination teaches the mobile hedge trimmer apparatus as described above, but does not teach said control unit controls the actuation of said servomotor when it receives information regarding inclination, with respect to a zero position, of said pillar 15 on said axes.
Yuan, et al. teaches the movement system (as described above) wherein the control unit controls the servomotor (page 5: (3) “the dynamic balance controller receives three servo electric cylinder feedback signal and a weight block position of the real-time signal, the program judges the moment exceeds the safety range, the dynamic balance controller drives the counterweight motor 11 to rotate through the input and output interface to drive the weight block 13 to move, the arm frame system 8 moment is within a safe range”) when the controller receives information from sensor 19 (page 5: (2) lines 2-3: “balancing weight measuring sensor 19 measures the current balance block 13 position and transmits the signal to the dynamic balance controller”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to use the control unit to control the servomotor as taught by Yuan, et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in driving movement using sensor signals sent to the control unit to ensure safe operation.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Wilson and Cohet as applied to claims 1, 10, and 13 above, and further in view of Kamiya US4778022.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach said motor is connected to an advancement detector, said advancement detector sending advancement information to said control unit.
Kamiya teaches that it is known to use an advancement detector 44 (speed sensor 44 is considered an advancement detector since it can detect the vehicle moving) to send information to a control unit 28 (Column 1: 38-40 “In response to this signal S.sub.1 and a signal S.sub.2 from a vehicular speed sensor 44, the controller 43 outputs a drive signal S.sub.3 to the electric motor 39”). Kamiya is concerned with the same problem of controlling a vehicle as Grant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s motor to be connected to Kamiya’s advancement detector, in which Kamiya’s advancement detector sends advancement information (such as speed) to Grant’s control unit, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing speed information for motor and vehicle speed control during trimming.
Regarding claim 16, Grant teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the handlebar comprises one or more load cells, said load cells being adapted to detect at least a force exerted on said handlebar and to send electric or electronic signals to said control unit.
Kamiya teaches that it is known for a steering system to have comprises one or more load cells 22 (wherein a strain gauge is a type of load cell), said load cells being adapted to detect at least a force exerted on said steering and to send electric or electronic signals to said control unit (Column 54: 16-24 “The operations of the system thus constructed according to the present embodiment will be described in the following. Now, in the neutral state, i.e., when no steering force is applied to the (not-shown) steering wheel, no deflection occurs in the lever 20 so that the output of the strain gauge 22 is zero. As a result, the controller 28 shuts off the connection between the battery 29 and the electric motor 12 so that the electric motor 12 receives no current and remains inoperative”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Grant’s steering handlebar to have Kamiya’s load cell/strain gauge to send electric signals to the combination’s controller, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing electric steering for the trimmer, thus reducing the amount of physical force an operator has to use to steer the trimmer.
Regarding claim 17, Grant teaches that said handlebar comprises one or more joysticks, said one or more joysticks 84 (wherein 84 is stick shaped, and is engaged or disengaged by moving the stick by the operator, thus is considered a joystick) comprising at least a lever , and the combination teaches the lever is adapted to be operated by a user and to send electric or electronic signals to said control unit (when integrating Kamiya’s steering system with load cells).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jia CN105557335 teaches a hedge trimmer (Figure 1) with a first cutter 1 and a second cutter 2, integrally attached to pillar 6. Pillar 6 is adjustable in height using piston 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 2/6/2026