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 digital level and a bubbling level set forth in claim 4; a visual indicator, an audible indicator, a tactile indicator, a motor control indicator as set forth in claim 5; and a gyroscope and a flywheel as set forth in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It should be noted that the drawings merely depicts rectangular boxes to illustrates a level 128, an indicator 132, and an auto leveler 138. However, none of the specific structures recited in the claims are illustrated in a manner that corresponds to or reasonably represents their identified components.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6 and 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 specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of a level configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane. The specification merely discloses that the level may be a digital level, a bubble level, or both, but does not describe how such a level (particularly a bubble level) is capable of detecting the orientation of the blade assembly plane as claimed. A bubble level is conventionally an indicator of level condition and does not, by itself, perform detection in the manner required by the claim. The specification lacks any description of structure or functionality that would enable such detection.
The specification further fails to demonstrate possession of an indicator configured to generate feedback to the user about the orientation of the blade assembly plane relative to a reference plane. While the indicator is described as being visual or audible, the specification does not disclose how the indicator receives information from the level or how it performs any comparison between the blade assembly plane and the reference plane. There is no description of any communication pathway, processing mechanism, or functional relationship between the level and the indicator sufficient to support the claimed functionality.
Additionally, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of an auto leveler in communication with the level and configured to generate a force on the housing to maintain alignment between the blade assembly plane and the reference plane. Although the auto leveler is described as a gyroscope or a flywheel, the specification does not explain how such components generate or apply a corrective force to the housing. Nor does the specification disclose any controller, actuator, or mechanism by which information from the level is used to control the auto leveler. The absence of any disclosed structure or interaction between these components fails to support the claimed coordinated auto-leveling functionality.
Overall, the specification does not describe the claimed system in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
It should be noted that deficiencies noted above are not merely a lack of detail, but a failure to disclose the operative relationships and mechanisms necessary to achieve the claimed functionality. The specification identifies components such as a level, an indicator, and an auto leveler, but does not describe how these components interact to form a functional system. In particular, there is no disclosure of any communication pathway, control logic, or structural arrangement by which orientation information is obtained, processed, and used to generate a corrective force. The claimed auto-leveling functionality requires a coordinated system involving detection, comparison, and actuation; however, the specification provides no description of how such coordination is implemented. Further, the absence of any illustrative detail or description of the underlying mechanisms exacerbates the lack of understanding of the disclosure. As a result, the disclosure amounts to a mere listing of components and intended results, rather than a description of a complete and operative invention, and therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, the specification fails to provide written description support for the limitation that an operating speed of the blade assembly decreases as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds an angular displacement from the reference plane. This feature is not disclosed or suggested anywhere in the specification, and therefore the inventor has not demonstrated possession of this aspect of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-6 and 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 1, “the reference plane” lacks antecedent basis. It should be noted that the reference plane is also part of claims 2-3 and 6; however, the reference plane and its location and its relationship with the blade assembly plane have not been recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on canceled claim 7. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 8 is intended to remain pending or has been cancelled along with claim 7, and the scope of claim 8 cannot be properly determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5 and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visel et al. (DE 102007060245 A1), hereinafter Visel, in view of Pathak et al. (9,943,430 B2), hereinafter Pathak. 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 (as a detecting unit configured to detect an angular position of the hand tool relative to a reference plane) configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane compared to a reference plane; and an indicator (signaling means 8, as a visual 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.
Visel does not explicitly teach an auto leveler in communication with the level
auto leveler (as a flywheel or similar device), wherein the auto leveler is configured to generate a force on the housing to maintain alignment between the blade assembly and the reference plane.
Visel further teaches that the detection unit includes at least one of an acceleration sensor, rotation angle sensor, or similar inertial sensor, and compares detected orientation data to a desired angular position to determine deviation and provide corresponding feedback indicating direction and magnitude of correction.
However, Visel does not explicitly teach an auto leveler in communication with the detection unit, wherein the auto leveler is configured to generate a force on the housing to maintain alignment between the blade assembly plane and a reference plane.
Pathak teaches an auto-leveling system for a handheld device comprising a leveling IMU (230) configured to detect orientation of the device relative to a reference frame; a motion control system (205/300) configured to process orientation data and generate error signals based on deviation from a desired orientation; and an actuator assembly (115) operably connected to the device and configured to generate corrective motion forces on the housing of the device to actively maintain or restore alignment with a reference orientation. See Figs. 1-3.
Pathak further teaches a closed-loop control system in which sensor data is continuously processed to generate real-time command signals (e.g., pitch and roll commands) for driving actuators that physically manipulate the device orientation to achieve a stabilized or level state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the hand tool of Visel to include the auto-leveling system of Pathak in order to reduce user effort and improve accuracy in maintaining a desired orientation of the tool during operation, particularly when working on uneven terrain or when precise angular control is required.
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.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Visel, as modified by Pathak, teaches everything noted above including that auto leveler (205/300; Figs. 2-3 in Pathak) comprises a gyroscope, a flywheel, or both. It should be noted Pathak teaches that the detection unit includes a gyroscope (345) disposed within a leveling IMU (335/250), wherein the gyroscope is configured to detect angular velocity of the handheld device and provide orientation data to the motion system for determining the orientation of the device relative to the reference frame. See Figs. 2-3 in Pathak.
7. Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visel in view of Pathak and in further view of Kynast (DE 102014278). Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Visel, as modified by Pathak, does not explicitly teach that an operating speed of the blade assembly decreases as the orientation of the blade assembly plane exceeds a prescribed angular displacement from a reference plane.
However, Kynast teaches a sensor (11) configured to detect movement of a blade assembly (5) relative to a reference plane defined by the workpiece, and further teaches a motor controller (10) configured to adjust the operating speed of the blade assembly, including reducing the blade speed in response to detected movement conditions. See Fig. 1 and Abstract of Kynast.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Visel, as further modified by Pathak, to include the motor control functionality of Kynast, such that the operating speed of the blade assembly is reduced in response to detected deviations in orientation, in order to improve cutting stability, reduce user error, and enhance safety during operation.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand operation of the level to detect an orientation of a reference plane is not persuasive. As stated above, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of a level configured to detect an orientation of the blade assembly plane. The specification merely discloses that the level may be a digital level, a bubble level, or both, but does not describe how such a level (particularly a bubble level) is capable of detecting the orientation of the blade assembly plane as claimed. A bubble level is conventionally an indicator of level condition and does not, by itself, perform detection in the manner required by the claim. The specification lacks any description of structure or functionality that would enable such detection.
Applicant’s argument that specification discloses how the indicator functions is not persuasive. While the indicator is described as being visual or audible, the specification does not disclose how the indicator receives information from the level or how it performs any comparison between the blade assembly plane and the reference plane. There is no description of any communication pathway, processing mechanism, or functional relationship between the level and the indicator sufficient to support the claimed functionality.
Additionally, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of an auto leveler in communication with the level and configured to generate a force on the housing to maintain alignment between the blade assembly plane and the reference plane. Although the auto leveler is described as a gyroscope or a flywheel, the specification does not explain how such components generate or apply a corrective force to the housing. Nor does the specification disclose any controller, actuator, or mechanism by which information from the level is used to control the auto leveler. The absence of any disclosed structure or interaction between these components fails to support the claimed coordinated auto-leveling functionality.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection are not persuasive in view of the new ground of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-5402. 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
April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights