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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 13 each recite “a tube wall of the lower push rod”, which already has antecedent basis in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Claims 7 and 17 recite “a side wall of the upper push rod” which already have antecedent basis in parent claim 3 and 13, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-9 and 13-19 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.
Claims 3 and 13 each recite “the first limiting member has a tendency to enter the limiting hole”. It cannot be determined if the first limiting member is required to enter the limiting hole. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that the first limiting member is capable of entering the limiting hole.
Claims 5 and 15 each recite that “the limiting plate has a tendency to push the limiting ball”. It cannot be determined if the limiting plate is required to push the limiting ball. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that the limiting plate is capable of pushing the limiting ball.
Dependent claims do not remedy the issue, thus are also similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AU2014101295 Nie, et al.
Regarding claim 1, Nie, et al. teaches a push rod mechanism 20, comprising:
a lower push rod 22 and an upper push rod 21 relatively telescopic (Figure 4) to each other; and
a telescopic control assembly 10 sleeved at a joint position (Figure 2) between the lower push rod 22 and the upper push rod 21;
wherein the lower push rod 22 defines a through hole 22a/c passing through a side wall (the wall of 22) of the lower push rod 22;
the telescopic control assembly 10 comprises a limiting member 12b at least partially accommodated in the through hole (Figure 5), the limiting member 12b abuts against a side wall (inside port 21a) of the upper push rod 21 and has a position-limiting state (Figure 5) that restricts (via engagement of 12b into the ports 22a/c and 21a) stretch and retraction of the upper push rod 21 relative to the lower push rod 22; and
wherein the telescopic control assembly 10 further comprises an operating member (center portion of 12) capable of pressing against the limiting member 12b, and an operating handle 12c (wherein 12c is considered an operating handle since it’s tabbed end can be engaged by an operator and can be used as a lever to rotate 12 into position, and wherein 12c provides a friction portion to engage the joint as shown in Figure 5 as described at least in ¶0024 “ the other end of the operating lever 12 opposite to the locking member 12a is provided with a friction portion 12c, and when the operating lever 12 is rotated to the locking position, the friction portion 12c is tightly engaged with the outer wall 10a of the base 10”) configured to control movement of the operating member 12;
the operating handle 12c defines a first position (Figure 5) and a second position (Figure 4) and is able to move between the first position and the second position;
in response to the operating handle 12c being in the first position, the operating member 12 presses against the limiting member 12b to keep the limiting member 12b in the position-limiting state (Figure 5); and
in response to the operating handle 12c being in the second position (Figure 4), the operating member 12 gives way to the limiting member 12b to allow the limiting member 12b to exit the position-limiting state (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Nie, et al. teaches that the operating handle 12c rotates (via pivoting shown in Figures 4 vs 5) between the first position and the second position around a pivot shaft 11, the operating handle 12c is connected to the pivot shaft 11, and the operating member 12 is connected to the pivot shaft 11.
Regarding claim 3, Nie, et al. teaches that both the upper push rod 21 and the lower push rod 22 are hollow tubular members (Figure 3);
the through hole comprises a positioning hole 22a/c passing through a tube wall (wherein 22a/c is through the wall of 22) of the lower push rod 22, the upper push rod 21 is provided with a limiting hole 21a passing through a tube wall (wherein 21a is shown through the wall of 21) of the upper push rod 21 and coincident with the positioning hole 22a/c (when aligned as shown in Figures 4-5);
the limiting member 12b comprises a first limiting member 12b, and the first limiting member 12b has a tendency to enter the limiting hole 21a to limit stretch and retraction of the upper pushing rod relative to the 12 lower pushing rod (as shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Nie, et al. teaches a lawnmower 200 (Figure 9), comprising: a housing (the outside of 200, see Figure A below, annotated from Figure 9)), a grass collection bag (below 100, see Figure A below) located behind the housing, and a push rod mechanism 100 located on two sides (left and right) of the housing; wherein the push rod mechanism is located above the grass collection bag (as shown in Figure 9); wherein the push rod mechanism as described above.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 9
Regarding claim 12, Nie, et al. teaches that the operating handle 12c rotates (via pivoting shown in Figures 4 vs 5) between the first position and the second position around a pivot shaft 11, the operating handle 12c is connected to the pivot shaft 11, and the operating member 12 is connected to the pivot shaft 11.
Regarding claim 13, Nie, et al. teaches that both the upper push rod 21 and the lower push rod 22 are hollow tubular members;
the through hole comprises a positioning hole 22a/c passing through a tube wall of the lower push rod 22, the upper push rod 21 is provided with a limiting hole 21a passing through a tube wall of the upper push rod 21 and coincident with the positioning hole 22a/c;
the limiting member 12b comprises a first limiting member 12b, and the first limiting member 12b has a tendency to enter the limiting hole 21a to limit stretch and retraction of the upper pushing rod relative to the lower pushing rod (as shown in Figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie, et al. in view of Baker US2014/0260157 and Burns, et al. EP38618473.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Nie, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach a start switch and a safety switch connected to the start switch, wherein the safety switch is arranged in the telescopic control assembly 10; in response to the operating handle 12c being in the second position, the safety switch is triggered and the start switch is restricted to start; in response to the operating handle 12c being in the first position, the safety switch is not triggered and the start switch is allowed to start.
Baker teaches a lawnmower with a start/starter switch ¶0025 is notoriously well known in the art to enable starting the lawnmower 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nie, et al.’s lawnmower to include Baker’s start switch, since start switches are notoriously well-known for an operator to selectively operate a lawnmower.
Burns, et al. teaches a lawnmower with a safety switch ¶0016 (the pin 150 not contacting the position sensor 180), wherein the safety switch is arranged in the telescopic control assembly 80; in response to the operating handle being in the second position, the safety switch is triggered and the mower is restricted to start/operate ¶0016 (“The telescoping handle 45 can then move from the retracted position (FIGS. 1 and 6) to the extended position (FIGS. 2 and 7) such that the pin 150 aligns with the lower aperture 190 of the inner tube 70 and the position sensor 180. As the pin 150 still does not contact the position sensor 180 when the locking mechanism 80 is in the unlocked position (FIG. 7), the control processor 35 continues to disable operation of the lawnmower 10”, wherein the claimed “triggered” is the same as the described disable operation); in response to the operating handle being in the first position, the safety switch is not triggered (¶0017 “The pin 150 also moves to actuate the position sensor 180 by engaging the plunger 195”) and the mower is allowed to start/operate ¶0022 (“the control assembly 375 detects the telescoping handle 45 is locked in the extended position to enable operation of the lawnmower 10 once the bail 75 is actuated”. When the control assembly does not detect the telescoping handle 45 is locked, the lawnmower is not allowed to operate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nie, et al.’s lawnmower such that Burns, et al.’s safety switch is connected to Baker’s star switch, such that the lawnmower combination cannot start unless the telescoping handle is secured, thus improving safety for the operator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claims 4-6 and 14-16, Nie, et al. teaches that the telescopic control assembly 10 comprises a shell 10a accommodating the first limiting member 12b and the operating member 12;
Nie, et al. does not teach, in combination with the other claimed features, the first limiting member 12b comprises a limiting plate pivotally connected to the shell 10a and a limiting ball connected to the limiting plate;
the limiting ball is at least partially accommodated in the positioning hole 22a/c, and a diameter of the limiting ball is equivalent to a size of the positioning hole 22a/c.
Modification would not have been obvious, since inclusion of a limiting ball and limiting plate would alter Nie, et al.’s operation away from its intended purpose of having a rod that engages both inner and outer telescoping tubular’s ports when the lever is rotated into place.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, Nie, et al. teaches that the through hole of the lower push rod 22, but does not teach, in combination with the other claimed features, a strip hole defined on one side of the lower push rod 22 facing the pivot shaft 11, the limiting member 12b further comprises a second limiting member 12b, the second limiting member 12b is a flexible member accommodated in the strip hole, and the flexible member passes through the strip hole and abuts against a side wall of the upper push rod 21.
Modification would not have been obvious, since inclusion of a strip hole and second limiting member with a flexible member accommodated in the strip hole would alter Nie, et al.’s operation away from its intended purpose of having a rod that engages both inner and outer telescoping tubular’s ports when the lever is rotated into place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang, et al. US7774901 teaches a push rod mechanism Fig 1, lower push rod 10, upper push rod 50, telescopic Fig 4, telescopic control assembly 11 and 32, through hole 501; limiting member 42 (Fig 5), operating handle 111; first position Fig 5, and a second position Fig 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 3/3/2026