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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claimed material of the elongated handle, Applicant’s specification describes potential materials for the elongated handle stating “other materials such as plastics, metals, fiberglass, composites, etc. can also be used” (specification para [0029], lines 11-14). Applicant does not give any particular inventive reasoning as to why the elongated handle must be metal and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elongated handle out of any other material listed by Applicant. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding the curved metal neck portion that “curves downwardly from the receiving end and bends inwardly back towards the elongated handle at a terminal end” (claim 1), Annotated Figure 2 has been modified to include the portion of the curved neck that bends inward toward the handle. Examiner disagrees with the characterization that “SolaDirect does not suggest the neck bends inwardly back toward the elongated handle”. As depicted in Annotated Figure 2, SolaDirect discloses the curved neck bending inwardly back toward the handle in the same way as Applicant’s invention depicted in Applicant’s Fig 4.
Regarding the linear blade comprising an outer edge angled back toward the elongated handle, teaching reference Gatti (specifically element 20 of Fig 2 and Fig 5; see more details below) has been introduced to teach an outer edge angled back toward the handle of a handheld multipurpose gardening tool is considered an obvious modification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SolaDirect (NPL Reference 1) in further view of Boies (US 20190045697)
Regarding claim 1, SolaDirect discloses a cultivating and weeding garden tool comprising:
an elongated handle configured to be held by a user during use (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said elongated handle includes a first gripping end and a second mounting end (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said first gripping end includes an ergonomic grip (claim language is broad; the shaft of the handle is considered to be an ergonomic grip because the use grips it for use);
wherein said elongated handle includes a length from 30 inches to 54 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the length of the handle appears to be 120cm (47.2in) which meets the broad limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the handle from 30 to 54 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose);
a curved metal neck portion including a receiving end mounted to said second mounting end of said elongated handle (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said curved metal neck portion includes a length from 8 inches to 18 inches that curves downwardly from the receiving end and bends inwardly back toward the elongated handle at a terminal end of the curved metal neck portion (see Annotated Figures 1-2; based on the relative size of the photographs, wherein the blade is presented as being 10cm in length, the length of the curved portion would appear to be between 8 and 18 inches by comparison; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the metal neck portion from 8 to 18 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose);
a linear metal blade connected to the terminal end of said curved metal neck portion (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the blade is considered to be linear because it is straight); and
wherein said linear metal blade includes a width from ½ inch to 2 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the width is considered to meet the broad limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the width of the blade from ½ to 2 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose).
It is understood that the combination comprises a wood handle (depicted in Annotated Figure 1); however, Applicant’s specification describes potential materials for the elongated handle stating “other materials such as plastics, metals, fiberglass, composites, etc. can also be used” (specification para [0029], lines 11-14). Applicant does not give any particular inventive reasoning as to why the elongated handle must be metal and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elongated handle out of any other material listed by Applicant, 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
For the sake of argument, Boies discloses a similar earth working gardening tool with a handle (Fig 1; handle 12) and teaches the use of the handle for such a tool being “a wood shaft, or it may be made of a composite material, engineering plastic, or metal such as steel or aluminum…or of a combination thereof” (Boies; para [0021]).
SolaDirect and Boies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handheld gardening tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Boies and modified the material of the handle to be metal, fiberglass, or a composite. One would have made this combination to choose the material of the handle based on durability, weight, or cost desired.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
553
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
529
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 3, SolaDirect discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade includes a length from 2 inches to 6 inches (there is an option for 10cm which is 3.9in).
Regarding claim 4, SolaDirect discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade extends in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of said elongated handle (Annotated Figure 2 depicts the blade being generally orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the handle).
Regarding claim 6, SolaDirect discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade includes an angled outer edge (see Annotated Figure 2; the outer edge of the blade is considered to be angled).
Regarding claim 8, SolaDirect discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade includes a sharpened trailing edge for cutting a weed (claim language is broad; the trailing edge of the blade appears to be sharp).
The claim language “for cutting a weed” is considered to comprise functional limitations. Functional limitations do not impart any positively claimed structural limitations and therefore are not given any patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed invention must comprise a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As the device of SolaDirect does have a sharp trailing edge, it meets the structural limitations of the claim. The device is considered capable of functioning as claimed to cut weeds.
Regarding claim 9, SolaDirect discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade is replaceable (Annotated Figures 1-2 depict the blade being removable with fasteners and therefore could be replaced with a similar blade).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SolaDirect as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gardena (NPL Reference 2).
Regarding claim 7, SolaDirect fails to specifically disclose the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade is rectangular in shape.
However, Gardena discloses a similar garden tool to the claimed invention with a blade and teaches the blade being of a rectangular shape (see Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
510
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
SolaDirect and Gardena are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural hand tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Gardena and changed the shape of the blade to be more rectangular. One would have made this combination to make the hoe specifically for beets (Gardena).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the blade of SolaDirect as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 10, 12-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SolaDirect in further view of Gardena, Gatti (US 1666374), and Boies.
Regarding claim 10, SolaDirect discloses a cultivating and weeding garden tool comprising:
an elongated handle configured to be held by a user during use (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said elongated handle includes a first gripping end and a second mounting end (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said first gripping end includes an ergonomic grip (claim language is broad; the shaft of the handle is considered to be an ergonomic grip because the use grips it for use);
wherein said elongated handle includes a length from 30 inches to 54 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the length of the handle appears to be 120cm (47.2in) which meets the limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the handle from 30 to 54 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose);
a curved metal neck portion including a receiving end mounted to said second mounting end of said handle (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said curved metal neck portion includes a length from 8 inches to 18 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2 the length is considered to meet the limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the metal neck portion from 8 to 18 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose);
a linear metal blade connected to a terminal end of said curved metal neck portion (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the blade is considered to be linear because it is straight).
Although it is unclear from Applicant’s own Figures of the rectangular shape of the blade, SolaDirect does not appear to disclose the use of a blade with a rectangular shape. SolaDirect also fails to disclose the outer edge of the linear blade angled back toward the elongated handle.
Gardena discloses a similar garden tool to the claimed invention with a blade and teaches the blade being of a rectangular shape (see Annotated Figure 3).
SolaDirect and Gardena are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural hand tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Gardena and changed the shape of the blade to be more rectangular. One would have made this combination to make the hoe specifically for beets (Gardena).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the blade of SolaDirect as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As stated above, SolaDirect fails to specifically disclose the metal blade with an outer edge that is angled back toward the elongated handle; however, Gatti discloses a similar handheld multipurpose agricultural tool (Fig 2 and Fig 5) and teaches a portion of the weeding blade at an incline toward the handle (Fig 5; blade 20; pg 2, lines 37-56).
SolaDirect, Gardena, and Gatti are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handheld multipurpose agricultural tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of SolaDirect and Garden to incorporate the teachings of Gatti and modified the blade to include an inclined portion at the outer edge. One would have made this combination to control the depth at which the blade enters the ground or to sever weeds above the ground (Gatti; pg 2, lines 37-56).
Further, it is understood that the combination comprises a wood handle (depicted in Annotated Figure 1); however, Applicant’s specification describes potential materials for the elongated handle stating “other materials such as plastics, metals, fiberglass, composites, etc. can also be used” (specification para [0029], lines 11-14). Applicant does not give any particular inventive reasoning as to why the elongated handle must be fiberglass and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elongated handle out of any other material listed by Applicant, 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
For the sake of argument, Boies discloses a similar earth working gardening tool with a handle (Fig 1; handle 12) and teaches the use of the handle for such a tool being “a wood shaft, or it may be made of a composite material, engineering plastic, or metal such as steel or aluminum…or of a combination thereof” (Boies; para [0021]).
SolaDirect and Boies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handheld gardening tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Boies and modified the material of the handle to be metal, fiberglass, or a composite. One would have made this combination to choose the material of the handle based on durability, weight, or cost desired.
Regarding claim 12, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade includes a length from 2 inches to 6 inches (there is an option for 10cm which is 3.9in).
Regarding claim 13, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade extends in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of said elongated handle (Annotated Figure 2 depicts the blade being generally orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the handle).
Regarding claim 14, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said curved metal neck portion includes a first portion extending away from said longitudinal axis of said elongated handle and a second portion extending toward said longitudinal axis of said elongated handle (Annotated Figure 2 depicts the metal neck portion to have a first portion extending away from the axis of the handle and a second portion extending toward the longitudinal axis of the handle).
Regarding claim 15, while SolaDirect does not expressly disclose that the width of the metal blade is between ½ and 2 inches, it does disclose that the blade dimensions could be adjusted as desired while maintaining maximum durability in order for the blade to be rigid enough to function properly and not deflect too much during use. As a result of the width of the blade affecting the durability and rigidity, the blade width is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the width may be adjusted in order to maintain rigidity given a varying blade length. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the blade width to be between ½ inch and 2 inches, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 16, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade includes a sharpened trailing edge for cutting a weed (claim language is broad; the trailing edge of the blade appears to be sharp).
The claim language “for cutting a weed” is considered to comprise functional limitations. Functional limitations do not impart any positively claimed structural limitations and therefore are not given any patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed invention must comprise a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As the device of SolaDirect does have a sharp trailing edge, it meets the structural limitations of the claim. The device is considered capable of functioning as claimed to cut weeds.
Regarding claim 17, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said linear metal blade is replaceable (Annotated Figures 1-2 depict the blade being removable with fasteners and therefore could be replaced with a similar blade).
Regarding claim 18, SolaDirect discloses a cultivating and weeding garden tool comprising:
an elongated handle configured to be held by a user during use (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said elongated handle includes a first gripping end and a second mounting end (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
wherein said elongated handle includes a length from 30 inches to 54 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the length of the handle appears to be 120cm (47.2in) which meets the limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the handle from 30 to 54 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose);
a curved metal neck portion including a receiving end mounted to said second mounting end of said elongated handle (see Annotated Figures 1-2);
a linear metal blade connected to a terminal end of said curved metal neck portion (see Annotated Figures 1-2; the blade is considered to be linear because it is straight);
wherein said linear metal blade extends in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of said elongated handle (Annotated Figure 2 depicts the blade being generally orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the handle); and
wherein said curved metal neck portion includes a first portion extending downwardly away from said longitudinal axis of said elongated handle and a second portion extending inwardly back toward said longitudinal axis of said elongated handle at a terminal end of the curved metal neck portion (Annotated Figure 2 depicts the metal neck portion to have a first portion extending downward away from the axis of the handle and a second portion extending inward toward the longitudinal axis of the handle at the terminal end).
Although it is unclear from Applicant’s own Figures of the rectangular shape of the blade, SolaDirect does not appear to disclose the use of a blade with a rectangular shape. SolaDirect also fails to disclose the outer edge of the linear blade angled back toward the elongated handle.
Gardena discloses a similar garden tool to the claimed invention with a blade and teaches the blade being of a rectangular shape (see Annotated Figure 3).
SolaDirect and Gardena are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural hand tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Gardena and changed the shape of the blade to be more rectangular. One would have made this combination to make the hoe specifically for beets (Gardena).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the blade of SolaDirect as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As stated above, SolaDirect fails to specifically disclose the metal blade with an outer edge that is angled back toward the elongated handle; however, Gatti discloses a similar handheld multipurpose agricultural tool (Fig 2 and Fig 5) and teaches a portion of the weeding blade at an incline toward the handle (Fig 5; blade 20; pg 2, lines 37-56).
SolaDirect, Gardena, and Gatti are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handheld multipurpose agricultural tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of SolaDirect and Garden to incorporate the teachings of Gatti and modified the blade to include an inclined portion at the outer edge. One would have made this combination to control the depth at which the blade enters the ground or to sever weeds above the ground (Gatti; pg 2, lines 37-56).
Further, it is understood that the combination comprises a wood handle (depicted in Annotated Figure 1); however, Applicant’s specification describes potential materials for the elongated handle stating “other materials such as plastics, metals, fiberglass, composites, etc. can also be used” (specification para [0029], lines 11-14). Applicant does not give any particular inventive reasoning as to why the elongated handle must be composite and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elongated handle out of any other material listed by Applicant, 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
For the sake of argument, Boies discloses a similar earth working gardening tool with a handle (Fig 1; handle 12) and teaches the use of the handle for such a tool being “a wood shaft, or it may be made of a composite material, engineering plastic, or metal such as steel or aluminum…or of a combination thereof” (Boies; para [0021]).
SolaDirect and Boies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handheld gardening tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SolaDirect to incorporate the teachings of Boies and modified the material of the handle to be metal, fiberglass, or a composite. One would have made this combination to choose the material of the handle based on durability, weight, or cost desired.
Regarding claim 20, SolaDirect further discloses the cultivating and weeding garden tool wherein said curved metal neck portion includes a length from 8 inches to 18 inches (see Annotated Figures 1-2 the length is considered to meet the broad limitation; however, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the length of the metal neck portion from 8 to 18 inches, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose).
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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671