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 (claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 07/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has amended the withdrawn claims 11-20 to depend from claims 1 and 7. However, claims 11-20 still recite subject matter that is patentably distinct form the elected invention. For example,
Claim 6 or 8 drawn to a motor control indicator which is configured a to
adjust an operating speed blade assembly as an orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from a reference plane; or an auto-leveling device comprises a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both.
Claim 11-14, are directed to an urging force generated by an auto-
traveling device which approximately equal to zero when a blade assembly place is parallel with a reference plane; an auto-leveling device that is selectively activated by a user between an on-state and an off-state; a reference plane which is adjusted by orienting a blade assembly at a desired angle and zeroing the reference plane with the blade assembly oriented at a desired angle; and a hedge trimmer having an electrical motor communicating with a battery which provides power to the auto-leveling device.
Claim 15-20, are directed to a method of using e hedge trimmer in
including the steps of setting a reference plane for a blade assembly by orienting the blade assembly at a desired angle; zeroing the reference plane to a current blade assembly plane with the blade assembly at a desired cutting angle; and adjusting the blade assembly plane by performing in view of information from the level.
Claim 1 link(s) inventions I-III. The restriction requirement among the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim(s) 1. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312. Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
2. The inventions of groups I-II are related but separately usable as
claimed. For example, the control motor indicator for adjusting the speed of the blade assembly of the hedge trimmer or the auto-leveling device having a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both as set forth in invention I could be used without the specific features of the auto-traveling device, reference plane, and the battery providing power for both motor and the auto-leveling device of the hedge trimmer set forth in invention II. Conversely, the specific features of the auto-traveling device, reference plane, and the battery providing power for both motor and the auto-leveling device of the hedge trimmer set forth in invention II could be used without the control motor indicator for adjusting the speed of the blade assembly of the hedge trimmer or the auto-leveling device having a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both set forth in invention I. There is two-way patentable distinction between groups, and also each group has a unique search and examination burden. See MPEP 806.05.
3. Inventions III and I-II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process that does not include the steps
of setting a reference plane for a blade assembly by orienting the blade assembly at a desired angle; zeroing the reference plane to a current blade assembly plane with the blade assembly at a desired cutting angle; and adjusting the blade assembly plane by performing in view of information from the level.
4. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
There is a search and/or examination burden for groups I-III above due to the divergent searches involved, and the resultant divergent examination processes.
5. Claims 9-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/02/2025.
Claim Interpretation
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an auto-leveling device” as forth in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
8. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure does not disclose how the level configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane. The specification discloses that the level is a digital level, a bubble level, or both. However, the specification does not disclose how the level as a bubble level is configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane. Does the level have other components that compare the blade assembly with the reference plane? The disclosure does not disclose what encompasses the level and how does it perform the detection and the comparing of the blade assembly plane and the reference plane. Regarding claim 1, the disclosure also does not disclose how the indicator generates feedback to the user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane. In fact, it is not clear how the level communicates with the indicator. The specification disclose that the indicator is a visual indicator or an audible indicator. Therefore, for example, it is not clear how a visual indicator communicates with the level. It is not clear what encompasses the indicator and how does it function.
Regarding claim 6, the specification does not disclose how the indicator as a motor control indicator is configured to generate feedback to a user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane, and also it is configured to adjust an operational speed of the blade assembly as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from the reference plane. In fact, it is not clear what encompasses the motor control indicator and how does it function. It is not clear what mechanism is used to adjust the operating speed of the motor according to the orientation of the blade assembly plane. It is not also clear what device measures the operating speed of the blade assembly. It is not clear how the operational speed of the blade assembly is measured.
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure does not disclose how the auto-leveling device (138; Fig. 1) being configured to urge the hedge trimmer such that the blade assembly plane is parallel to the reference plane. The specification does not disclose any mechanism that does urge the hedge trimmer such that the blade assembly moves parallel to eth reference plane. In fact, it is not clear what mechanism is used to perform this action. The disclosure does not disclose a mechanism that can perform the function of moving the blade assembly plane parallel to the reference plane.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear how the gyroscope and flywheel of the auto-leveling device works. In fact, it is not clear what encompasses the auto-leveling device and how does it work.
9. Claims 6-8 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.
Regarding to claim 6, “the motor control indicator is configured to adjust an operating speed of the blade assembly as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from the reference plane” is confusing. It is not clear how the indicator as a motor control indicator is configured to generate feedback to a user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane and also it is configured to adjust an operational speed of the blade assembly as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from the reference plane.
Regarding claim 7, “the auto-leveling device being configured to urge the hedge trimmer such that the blade assembly plane is parallel with the reference plane” is confusing as it is not clear what encompasses the auto-leveling device and how does it function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rickey et al. (CN 201910052619 A), hereinafter Rickey, provide with the IDS submitted on 03/01/2024. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Rickey teaches a hedge trimmer 10 comprising: a housing; a blade assembly (Fig. 2A) extending from the housing, wherein the blade assembly defines a blade assembly plane (defined by the horizontal plane aligned by the dashed lines in Fig, 2B); a level 102 configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane; and an indicator 108 (as a display) configured to generate feedback to a user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane. See Figs. 1-6 in Rickey.
Regarding claim 2, Rickey teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjustable (as the user holds the hedger at a sloped ground, and then actuates the input means 112 to record the desired angular reference as a reference or a reference plane). See paragraph [0032] in Rickey.
Regarding claim 3, Rickey teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjusted by orienting the blade assembly at a desired angle and zeroing the reference plane (as a new reference plane) with the blade assembly oriented at the desired angle.
Regarding claim 4, Rickey teaches everything noted above including that the level 102 comprises a digital level (as an IMU sensor which is considered to be a digital sensor), a bubble level, or both. See Paragraph [0027] in Rickey.
Regarding claim 5, Rickey teaches everything noted above including that the indicator 108 comprises a visual indicator (as a display), an audible indicator, a tactile indicator, a motor control indicator, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Rickey teaches everything noted above including that the level is in communication with an auto-leveling device 104 of the hedge trimmer, the auto-leveling device being configured to urge the hedge trimmer such that the blade assembly plane is parallel with the reference plane.
12. Claims 1-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Visel et al. (DE 102007060245 A1), hereinafter Visel. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Visel teaches a hedge trimmer 1 comprising: a housing; a blade assembly 4 (Fig. 1) extending from the housing, wherein the blade assembly defines a blade assembly plane (9); a level 5 configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane; and an indicator (as a display for displaying the angle) configured to generate feedback to a user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane. See Figs. 1-2 in Visel.
Regarding claim 2, Visel teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjustable (by setting the desired angular position and the setpoints ranges). See page 5, paragraph 3 of the attached the translation.
Regarding claim 3, Visel teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjusted by orienting the blade assembly at a desired angle and zeroing the reference plane (as a new reference plane) with the blade assembly oriented at the desired angle.
Regarding claim 4, Visel teaches everything noted above including that the level 5 comprises a digital level, a bubble level, or both.
Regarding claim 5, Visel teaches everything noted above including that the indicator (as a display or visual display) comprises a visual indicator, an audible indicator, a tactile indicator, a motor control indicator, or any combination thereof.
13. Claims 1-5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Szieff (WO 2006/020571 A2). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Szieff teaches a hedge trimmer 10 comprising: a housing 26; a blade assembly (as a drill bit with cute into an object) extending from the housing, wherein the blade assembly defines a blade assembly plane (defined by the horizontal plane or a plane that is set as a zero reference plane); a level 50 configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane; and an indicator (12, 14; a display unit) configured to generate feedback to a user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to the reference plane. See Figs. 1-3 in Szieff.
Regarding claim 2, Szieff teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjustable (for all possible zero starting references; page 10, lines 1-22).
Regarding claim 3, Szieff teaches everything noted above including that the reference plane is adjusted by orienting the blade assembly at a desired angle and zeroing the reference plane with the blade assembly oriented at the desired angle.
Regarding claim 4, Szieff teaches everything noted above including that the level 50 comprises a digital level (as an accelerometer), a bubble level, or both.
Regarding claim 5, Szieff teaches everything noted above including that the indicator (12, 14) comprises a visual indicator (as a display), an audible indicator, a tactile indicator, a motor control indicator, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Szeiff teaches everything noted above including that the level is in communication with an auto-leveling device 48 of the hedge trimmer, the auto-leveling device being configured to urge the hedge trimmer such that the blade assembly plane is parallel with the reference plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickey in view of Kynast (DE 102014206278). Regarding claim 6, Rickey does not explicitly teach that the motor control indicator is configured to adjust an operating speed of the blade assembly as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from the reference plane. However, Kynast teach a sensor 11 that detects the movement of a blade assembly 5 with respect to a plane (defined as the plane of the workpiece). Kynast also teaches a motor controller 10 controls the speed of the blade assembly according to the detected movement of the blade assembly. See Fig. 1 and the abstract in Kynast. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill ion the art to provide Rickey’s controller with the ability to control the speed of the motor according to the movement of the blade assembly in order to facilitate the cutting of the workpiece.
16. Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickey. Regarding claim 8, Rickey does not explicitly teach that the auto-leveling device comprises a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both. However, Official Notice is taken that the use of auto-leveling device having a gyroscope or a flywheel is old and well known in the art.
17. Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szieff in view of Kynast. Regarding claim 6, Szieff does not explicitly teach that the motor control indicator is configured to adjust an operating speed of the blade assembly as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from the reference plane. However, Kynast teach a sensor 11 that detects the movement of a blade assembly 5 with respect to a plane (defined as the plane of the workpiece). Kynast also teaches a motor controller 10 controls the speed of the blade assembly according to the detected movement of the blade assembly. See Fig. 1 and the abstract in Kynast. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill ion the art to provide Szieff’s controller with the ability to control the speed of the motor according to the movement of the blade assembly in order to facilitate the cutting of the workpiece.
18. Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szieff. Regarding claim 8, Szieff does not explicitly teach that the auto-leveling device comprises a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both. However, Official Notice is taken that the use of auto-leveling device having a gyroscope or a flywheel is old and well known in the art.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Jagenstedt (11,117,204 B2), Martinsson et al. (11,135,665 B2), Duesselberg et al. (2015/0000944 A1) and Konrad (DE 10009007977 B2) teach a hedge trimmer.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 July 25, 2025