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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in this application. All claims are eligible for examination.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the channel" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been interpreted as though “the” was “a”, which will overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karcher (US 1032485) in view of Wallace (US 2748554) and Bridegum (US 3406722).
With respect to claim 1, Karcher discloses a weed clipping device (in the title and figure 1, Karcher discloses a grass clipper that reads on a weed clipper because some grasses are weeds) comprising:
a shaft having a handle end, a blades end, and a peripheral wall extending therebetween to define an interior space (in figure 3, Karcher discloses a tubular handle 1 which, as shown in figure 1, extends between an handle end – towards element 2 – and a blade end – towards element 4; the peripheral wall of the claim is shown by tubular handle 1 and its inner space is clearly shown in figure 3);
a rod being rotatably coupled to the shaft (in figure 3, Karcher discloses shaft 14 which is rotatably coupled to the tubular handle 1), the rod being positioned within the interior space (in figure 3, Karcher discloses the shaft 14 disposed within the inner space of the tubular handle 1), the rod having a top portion, a bottom portion, and a middle portion extending therebetween, the top portion being positioned adjacent to the handle end, the bottom portion being positioned adjacent to the blades end, a length of the rod exceeding a length of the shaft such that the bottom portion extends outwardly from the shaft beyond the blades end when the top portion is enclosed within the shaft (in figures 3 and 4, Karcher discloses that the shaft 14 has an end disposed near the handle end of the tubular handle 1, a middle portion, and a second end disposed near the blades end of the tubular handle; figure 4 of Karcher shows the shaft 14 extending past the blades end of the tubular handle 1 and into cam 19 – shown only in figure 5 – which is adjacent to roller 20);
a handle being coupled to the handle end, the handle extending outwardly from the shaft in a first direction (in figure 1, Karcher discloses a handle 10 that extends outwardly from the tubular handle 1 via member 3);
a trigger mechanism being coupled to the handle, the trigger mechanism engaging the rod whereby the trigger mechanism rotates the rod within the shaft (in figure 3, Karcher discloses handles 16 and 17, either of which read on a trigger mechanism because they are actuated by squeezing towards the handle 10; as shown in figure 3, the handles 16 and 17 engage the shaft 14 via pinion 13);
a pair of blades, each of the pair of blades extending outwardly from the blades end in a second direction (in figure 6, Karcher discloses two sets of blades 23 and 25 extending out from the shaft 14), the pair of blades being configured to clip weeds proximate to a ground surface while a user is standing on the ground surface (in figure 4, Karcher discloses that the blades are at ground surface level and a user can be standing on that same level); and
a coupler pivotably coupling the pair of blades to the bottom portion of the rod (in figures 6 and 4, the shaft 14 is connected through elements 29, 20, and 21 to pivotably move the blades with respect to each other).
Karcher does not disclose the pair of blades being [both] pivotably coupled to the rod, the second direction being opposite the first direction, or the coupler pivoting each of the pair of blades inwardly toward the other and outwardly from the other when the trigger mechanism rotates the rod within the shaft.
However, Wallace discloses the second direction being opposite the first direction (in figure 1, Wallace discloses an handle 36 that is going in a first direction that is to the right in the X-dimension while the blades 8 and 10 are going in a second direction that is to the left in the X-dimension)
Furthermore, Bridegum discloses a pair of blades being [both] pivotably coupled to the rod (in figures 1 and 3, Place discloses two blades 10 and 11 of a lawn trimmer that are pivotally connected to a rod 18), and the coupler pivoting each of the pair of blades inwardly toward the other and outwardly from the other when the trigger mechanism rotates the rod within the shaft (in figures 3 and 4, Place discloses that the blades moving towards each other and away from each other depending on whether they have been actuated).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the smaller blades that both rotate as taught by Bridegum and an handle that is coplanar with the general direction of the blades as taught by Wallace for the larger blades and askew handle of Karcher because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a lighter trimmer that can be operated with a single arm (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Note that, while Karcher uses alternate squeezing from both hands to cycle the system from an initial state, through a cutting cycle, and back to the initial state; Wallace achieves this by squeezing with one hand and then letting spring 46 – shown in figure 2 – return the system to its initial state. So the substitution of Wallace’s handle also teaches adding a spring.
With respect to claim 4, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses the handle is configured for being gripped by a user (in lines 65-68 of page 1, Karcher discloses an operator grasping the handle 10, which reads on the handle being configured to be gripped by a user).
With respect to claim 5, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses the handle is perpendicular to the shaft (in figure 3, Karcher discloses the handle is perpendicular to the shaft; while rotated into the page by the substitution of Wallace, the combination still renders obvious a perpendicular handle because that is how Karcher teaches the connection and Wallace does not preclude perpendicular elements).
With respect to claim 7, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses that the trigger mechanism further comprises:
a trigger being pivotably coupled to the handle, the trigger pivoting upwardly toward the handle and downwardly from the handle (in figure 3, Karcher discloses a trigger 17 that pivots upwardly towards and downwardly from the handle 10; as modified by Wallace, this trigger and handle has been rotated 90 degrees around the axis of casting 3 so that the handle and trigger 17 and half of the handle 10 are pointed into the page, basically opposite the direction of movement of the grass clipper; this modification makes Karcher’s handle assembly look like Wallace’s; Wallace shows the trigger as element 40 in figure 2 with handle 36);
a spring being attached to and extending between the handle and the trigger, the spring compressing when the trigger pivots inwardly toward the handle, the spring expanding when the trigger pivots outwardly from the handle (in figure 2 of Wallace, a spring 46 is disposed between the handle 46 and the trigger 40; as discussed previously, the spring is needed to provide a force that returns the system to its initial state after the trigger is squeezed);
a trigger gear being coupled to the trigger adjacent to the shaft (in figure 3, Karcher discloses segmental rack member 12, which is a gear that is disposed adjacent to shaft 14), the trigger gear contacting the top portion of the rod (the rack 12 contacts the pinion 13, which is part of the top of the rod), the trigger gear pivoting downwardly when the trigger pivots upwardly toward the handle, the trigger gear pivoting upwardly when the trigger pivots downwardly from the handle (in figure 3, Karcher discloses that the left side of the rack 12 will go right when trigger 17 is squeezed – from the perspective of these elements being rotated 90 degrees so the trigger points into the page and the left side of the rack out of the page and at the viewer, the rack pivots downwardly when the trigger towards the handle and vice versa); and
the top portion including a top threading and the trigger gear including a trigger threading, the top threading being complementary to the trigger threading such that the rod rotates when the trigger gear pivots (in figure 3, Karcher discloses threading on rack 12 and on pinion 13 which is part of the shaft 14; as disclosed in lines 59-76 of page 1, the rack and pinion mesh together and rotate the shaft 14).
With respect to claim 8, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses the spring biases the trigger outwardly from the handle (in figure 2, Wallace discloses the spring disposed between the handle and trigger; when the handle and trigger are squeezed together, the spring compresses and thus biases the trigger away – or outwardly – from the handle).
With respect to claim 9, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses each of the pair of blades pivots inwardly toward the other when the rod rotates from the trigger being pivoted upward toward the handle (in figures 3 and 4, Bridegum discloses the pair of blades pivots inwardly toward the opposite blade when actuated; the actuation of Karcher in view of Wallace and Place is squeezing of the trigger to rotate a shaft that runs from the trigger to the blades).
With respect to claim 10, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 9. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses each of the pair of blades further comprising a pointed end portion and a rounded end portion, each of the pair of blades pivoting about the rounded end portion (in figure 3, Bridegum discloses blades that have pointed ends and rounded ends with the axes about which the blades rotates being disposed towards the rounded ends).
With respect to claim 11, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 10. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses the coupler is positioned proximate to the rounded end portion of each of the pair of blades (in figure 3, Bridegum discloses that the coupling elements are all disposed towards the rounded end of the blades; in figure 4, Karcher discloses that the coupler is disposed towards the attachment end of the blades rather than the pointed end).
With respect to claim 12, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses the pair of blades further comprising: a first blade being attached to the bottom portion (in figure 3 of Bridegum, the top blade 10 reads on a first blade attached to the bottom portion of the shaft; note that the claim does not require the blade to be directly attached to the bottom portion of the shaft); a second blade being pivotably coupled to the bottom portion, the second blade being positioned beneath the first blade (in figure 3 of Bridegum, the lower blade 11 is positioned slightly beneath the upper blade); and wherein the first blade pivots in a same direction as the rod when the trigger mechanism rotates the rod within the shaft, and wherein the second blade pivots in an opposite direction as the rod when the trigger mechanism rotates the rod within the shaft (in figure 4, Karcher discloses that the top blades are acted upon directly by the rotating shaft, which renders obvious that the top blades rotate in the same direction as the shaft).
With respect to claim 13, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 12. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum further discloses a retainer coupling the second blade to the rod (in figure 2, Bridegum discloses a footer 26 securing the lower blade 11, which corresponds to the claim’s second blade; the footer 26 reads on a retainer because it keeps the blade from falling off; note that the claim is not limited to direct coupling of the second blade and rod).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flickinger (US 5375401).
With respect to claim 2, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum does not explicitly disclose that the length of the shaft is between 2.5 feet and 3.5 feet.
However, Flickinger discloses a weed cutting device with a pistol actuator and grip where the length of the shaft is between 2.5 feet and 3.5 feet (in lines 37-53 of column 1, Flickinger discloses a weed remover with shaft 15 that runs between a blade and a trigger mechanism and is about three feet long, which falls within the range given by the claim).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the 3 foot rod length of Flickinger with the indeterminate length of the rod of Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a specific length for the weed trimmer that is ergonomic for many people (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 6, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum does not disclose the handle further comprising plastic. However, Flickinger discloses an handle further comprising plastic (in lines 51-60 of column 2, Flickinger discloses the trigger mechanism, which is housed in the handle, being made from plastic; at least because the trigger mechanism is housed in the handle in Flickinger, it renders obvious the handle comprising plastic).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute plastic within the handle as taught by Flickinger for whatever material makes up the handle of Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the combination would be that the handle apparatus would be easy to make as manufacturing with plastics is broadly understood (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dearman (US 5315762).
With respect to claim 3, Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum discloses the limitations of claim 1. Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum does not disclose the shaft further comprises aluminum. However, Dearman discloses a grass or weed clipping device that has an extended shaft running between the handle and blades where the shaft further comprises aluminum (in lines 12-17 of column 4, Dearman discloses a shaft or extension arm – element 14 in figure 1 – which is made of aluminum; the arm of Dearman reads on the shaft of the claims because the arm extends between a trigger-grip handle and blades for trimming plants).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine Dearman’s aluminum material for an arm or shaft with the tubular handle or shaft of Karcher in view of Wallace and Bridegum because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that the clipping apparatus is relatively light-weight because aluminum is, relative to other metals, low density (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the gearing that is used to pivot two blades by rotation of a shaft is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in the context of elongated lawn trimmers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Place (912408) discloses a lawn trimmer with scissoring blades, as shown in figure 3. Yeh (7540093) discloses gardening shears, as shown in figure 1. Wu (US 2005/0016149) discloses a type of mower where the scissoring blades are at a right angle to the shaft on which they are affixed, as shown in figure 3. Haruya (JP 2984979) discloses a lawn device that has a squeeze trigger to effect end graspers, as shown in figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671